PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Order for consideration read.
	Bill to be considered on Tuesday 18 November.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Afghanistan

Gregory Barker: If he will make a statement on the proposed constitution for Afghanistan.

Bill Rammell: The draft Afghan constitution was published on 3 November, following a process of popular consultation. It will be discussed and approved at a constitutional Loya Jirga which is expected to take place in Kabul in December.
	It is for the Afghan people to decide on the form of the constitution, but the UK has made it clear to the Afghan Transitional Administration that, while we understand that the constitution must reflect Afghan culture and traditions, we also expect it to respect Afghanistan's international obligations and commitments in the area of human rights.

Gregory Barker: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is clear that we have come a long way in the past couple of years, but what assurances can he give the House that the powerful regional warlords will buy into the constitution and the democratic process? That is especially important given that the respected group Human Rights Watch, which is based in New York, said recently that a climate of fear exists in every region of Afghanistan, and that numerous candidates have received death threats and want to stay away from the elections due to take place after the Loya Jirga has been held.

Bill Rammell: First, it is important to make it clear that significant progress has been made, despite the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. The Afghan economy grew by some 30 per cent. last year. Children—particularly young girls—are back at school, and hundreds of schools, hospitals and clinics have been rebuilt and repaired. Clearly, the security situation outside Kabul is not as good as it is in the capital. We need to work with the Afghan authorities to improve law enforcement, but the draft constitution contains significant safeguards that will ensure human rights and the protection of all the Afghan people. We will work with our Afghan partners to realise that.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate the Afghan Transitional Authority and the British Government on the progress that has been made to get to a point that many thought would never be reached. I have read the draft constitution in English only, but it contains elements that do not seem comprehensively to protect the rights of women. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that that matter is not for us to choose or determine, so will he say what assistance the Government will give to ensure that Afghan women are present in numbers at the Loya Jirga, that they have security, and that they are able to make their voices heard so that they may determine the rights of Afghan women under the constitution?

Bill Rammell: May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the significant work that she has done on the rights of women in Afghanistan? She raises an important point: it is for the Afghan authorities to determine these matters, but we provide advice and assistance. When I visited Afghanistan in July, I took the opportunity—as all my colleagues do—to seek out the views of women and to ensure that they are involved in the political process. The draft constitution contains significant safeguards, especially in respect of Afghanistan making it clear that it will abide by the UN charter and the universal declaration on human rights. I welcome my hon. Friend's congratulations on the progress that has been made, but we are entering a critical phase and we must remain focused on the issue.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Earlier this year, a Minister visiting Baghdad said that it was the Government's intention to give the Afghan people a final say on their constitution in a national referendum. Is it still the Government's policy to give the Afghans a say on their new constitution but to deny the British people a say on the European constitution?

Bill Rammell: It is fascinating to observe that the old stories are still running, even after a change of leadership and of Front-Bench personnel. The previous Conservative Government held no referendum on Maastricht or on other changes, and we will take this issue forward in exactly the same way.

Michael Ancram: Although we welcome the new constitution as a potential element for stability in Afghanistan, does the Minister agree that it can be only one stabilising element at best, which on its own will not be enough? Does he agree that eliminating opium poppy production—as I saw for myself when I visited Afghanistan in July—would also contribute to future stability and that failure to do so will cause further instability? Given that Britain is officially responsible for international efforts to eradicate that problem and given that, in 2002, the Government promised to reduce poppy cultivation by
	"70 per cent. in five years",
	what progress has been made towards achieving that target?

Bill Rammell: rose—

Ernie Ross: Congratulate him on his appointment.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend; I was just about to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an important—[Interruption.] My apologies. The right hon. Gentleman makes—[Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary makes an important point about the progress that is being made on stability through the draft constitution. Nevertheless, the situation in regard to drug production remains difficult. We have always said that it will be a long haul; a 10-year plan is in place and if the shadow Foreign Secretary considers those countries where there has been significant progress on tackling drug cultivation—for example, in Pakistan and Thailand—he will see that one could not have expected significant progress to have been made by this stage. However, the building blocks, in terms of law enforcement and alternative livelihoods, are in place to create a situation in which we are confident that over the five to 10-year period the problem will be removed.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks; I take them in the spirit in which they were intended.

Jack Straw: We are very pleased, Michael.

Michael Ancram: I am always pleased to please the Foreign Secretary.
	Is not the true problem, which is not in any way covered by the constitution, that opium production has risen from a starting point in 2001—in terms of the five-year target—of 185 tonnes to 3,400 tonnes in 2002 and 3,600 tonnes in 2003? Does the Minister agree with the International Monetary Fund, which warned in September that Afghanistan was in danger of sliding into what it called a "narco-state"? Why were the Government's predictions so wildly and dangerously out of line? What has gone wrong?

Bill Rammell: The specific year to which the shadow Foreign Secretary refers is the year when the Taliban, using all the repressive measures at their disposal, stopped cultivation while continuing to process and traffic to feed the regime financially. If the shadow Foreign Secretary looks at the figures for this year, he will see that, yes, there has been a small increase, and given the experience in Pakistan and Thailand, that is in line with what one would expect at this stage of the redevelopment of Afghanistan. As the infrastructure is improved, there is initially a small increase in production. However, with the other measures that are being taken, especially for alternative livelihoods and for the enhancement of law enforcement throughout the country, we remain confident that the objectives can be met.

Iraq

Bill Wiggin: If he will make a statement on the recent attack on the Red Cross in Iraq.

David Stewart: If he will make a statement on his assessment of the future role of aid agencies in Iraq.

Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq.

Jack Straw: Life in many parts of Iraq is better than it was before military action began. Power, water and sewerage have been restored. Schools, universities and hospitals are in operation. A new currency has been introduced. Economic activity is rising, as is oil production. Not least, there are now remarkably free and active media, where before information was tightly controlled by the Saddam regime. Opinion polls taken in Iraq show consistently high levels of support for the removal of Saddam by the coalition.
	I am the first to accept, however, that the security situation in parts of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the so-called Sunni triangle, remains unsatisfactory. Terrorist attacks have led to the withdrawal of the international staff of aid agencies and non-governmental organisations. This morning, I spoke to Dr. Jacob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who assured me that the closure of the Red Cross offices in Baghdad and Basra was on a temporary basis and that it was being kept under close review. Many agencies continue to operate with local staff, and every effort is being made, not least by the coalition, to ensure that aid gets through.

Bill Wiggin: The House will be aware that this is the first time that the Red Cross has been directly attacked. Is it true that the person suspected of co-ordinating those attacks is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam Hussein's No. 2? Will there be an increase in the amount of intelligence available to find out about that?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is the first time, so far as I know, that ICRC offices anywhere have been attacked. The ICRC has had an extremely fine record of working for people in a number of conflict situations. As Dr. Kellenberger told me this morning, it is always first in, last out, and it has an exceptional reputation for integrity and independence from the occupying powers, as is required of it given its responsibilities to secure the enforcement of the Geneva conventions.
	As for Mr. al-Douri, I, too, have seen those reports, but I can offer no further comment on them. Of course, we accept that part of the effort to improve the security situation, along with direct military action and an improvement in the overall environment in which the majority of Iraqis work and live, is an improvement in intelligence.

David Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the aid agencies on the work that they carry out in Iraq in very difficult circumstances, as I experienced a few weeks ago? What contingency plans does he have to ensure that humanitarian aid continues to be delivered to the Iraqi people?

Jack Straw: I do indeed know of my hon. Friend's experience in Basra as a member of the parliamentary forces partnership arrangement. I am extremely grateful to him for spending three days in a tent in Basra, experiencing life with the military there. We are working very hard indeed through the coalition and now increasingly through the civilian Government, under the governing council and the Iraqi ministries, to ensure that aid gets through. The proof of that is that so much of life is now much better, not just than it was in the immediate aftermath of the military action but well before it, not least as a result of the better partnership between the coalition authorities and the aid agencies, many of which continue to use their local staff.

Graham Allen: The Foreign Secretary will know better than anyone that there was some dispute over the legal basis of the invasion of Iraq, but I know that he takes second place to no one in his desire to rebuild both the global coalition against terrorism and the United Nations. Can he tell the House whether—in case we were ever to take on a murdering butcher in future—he is working on restoring and strengthening the legal basis on which the UN and, indeed, a coalition of nations might act?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says and the manner in which he says it. The legal argument about whether military action was justified in respect of Iraq emphasised the fact that the legal basis for military action contained in the UN charter, which was agreed just after the last world war, is no longer fully adequate to cope with today's threats. It copes very well with the traditional threats of action being taken by one sovereign nation against another, but it no longer copes with the new set of threats from rogue and/or failing states, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. How exactly we resolve that is difficult, but it is a matter to which we are applying ourselves, to which the United States is applying itself and to which the European Union in its important draft security strategy, to which we have contributed, is also applying itself, and I undertake to keep the House informed of developments.

Menzies Campbell: Is it not a simple truth that the efforts to bring about the reconstruction of Iraq and to establish democracy there simply cannot be allowed to fail? Is it not equally true that the achievement of those objectives is likely to take a much higher degree of commitment than was first envisaged? Do not those facts require the British Government to be entirely honest with the British people about how long that may take and how much it may cost?

Jack Straw: We are not going to allow our efforts to fail. We are absolutely determined about that, and it is interesting that the whole international community is of the same opinion, whatever view may have been taken about the military action in the first place. We have been as explicit as we can with the British public, as we are required to be and as we must be, about the long-term prospects. The truth is that I cannot say how long we will have to stay in Iraq, any more than anyone could have said how long we would be in Kosovo or Bosnia. But I can say that we will be there until the job is completed. I hope very much that, in a short while, we will be there at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi Administration.

Tony Baldry: When the reconstruction plans for Iraq were promulgated, it was assumed that much of the cost of reconstruction would come from Iraq's own oil. Because of the disruption, that is not happening, and consequently donors must give more money and the Department for International Development's budget has been raided to the tune of £100 million, which will mean a withdrawal of UK bilateral development aid to most of Latin America, central Asia and elsewhere. When does the Foreign Secretary anticipate that Iraq will be able to start paying something towards its own reconstruction costs?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. All the oil revenues are paid into the Iraqi development fund, which, under resolution 1483, is explicitly for the benefit of the Iraqis and nobody else. It was always anticipated that in addition to the revenues that the Iraqis might be able to generate, because of the huge damage done to the infrastructure of Iraq and the squandering of its wealth, a substantial international aid effort would be required, including contributions from the United Kingdom. Nor do I accept for a second that DFID's funds have been raided to pay for reconstruction, which is now a very high priority. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that we have more than doubled our aid programme overall in the last six years, from the shadow of what it should have been when we came to office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it very clear that 90 per cent. of the funds of DFID, which are related to poverty alleviation, remain entirely untouched.

Tam Dalyell: Is it not fundamental, as was recognised at Nuremberg in 1945, that whatever crimes men may or may not have committed, they are entitled to a trial? Why has not a trial started of Tariq Aziz and others? In the case of Tariq Aziz, is it on account of his medical condition?

Jack Straw: I accept the basis of my hon. Friend's point that it is fundamental that when there is evidence against people, they must be subject to proceedings, and steps are being taken to establish appropriate tribunals within Iraq.

Michael Ancram: We share the general concern at the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Does the Foreign Secretary share the view of his Government representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock that the current security threat emanates largely from elements originating from outside Iraq, and can he identify those elements? In the light of what he had to say about intelligence earlier, does he also share United States administrator Paul Bremer's analysis in The Times yesterday that the terrorist attacks will
	"be more of a problem in the months ahead unless the intelligence gets better"?
	What steps is he taking to address this apparent intelligence deficit?

Jack Straw: May I repeat the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his survival in the shadow Cabinet, a matter on which I am something of an expert? May I also say that I noticed in The Daily Telegraph that the new team has been described as "lean and mean"? Although I have great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's many sterling qualities, lean and mean is not the first description that comes to mind. He asked me two specific questions. First, yes, I do agree with Sir Jeremy Greenstock. We cannot tell for certain, and if we knew for certain, dealing with the terrorists would be that much easier. We believe, however, that terrorist actions are, in turns, taken either by remnants of the Saddam regime, by outside terrorists or by a mix of both. Ambassador Bremer was entirely correct to say that terrorism will become more of a problem unless intelligence is improved, and a considerable effort is now being made by the coalition and coalition forces to do just that.

Tom Clarke: What the Government's policy is in respect of the Kurdish population in northern Iraq and other parts of the region.

Bill Rammell: Relationships between the Kurdish population in the north and other parts of the region are a matter for the Iraqis. Representatives of the Government and the coalition provisional authority meet regularly with a wide variety of political groups in Iraq, including representatives of the Kurdish population, to hear their views. We are fully committed to maintaining relationships with the Kurdish population throughout Iraq.

Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend in a position to give the Government's response to the unanimous decision of the Kurdish National Assembly to assert that in the new Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan should be regarded as a single federal region embracing Kirkuk and Mosul, and that it should be protected against both threats and interference from any neighbouring states?

Bill Rammell: We have made it clear from the beginning of the process that we believe that the territorial integrity of Iraq should be protected. Nevertheless, we try to uphold the human rights of all Iraqis, including the Kurds. The appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) as the Prime Minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq has helped significantly in that regard.

Patrick Cormack: As the Prime Minister made plain last night in his speech at Guildhall, our Government are working in close co-operation with the American Government on all aspects in Iraq. In view of that, will the Minister confirm that when President Bush is here next week, he will address both Houses of Parliament, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did, and as our Prime Minister addressed Congress?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide.

Harry Barnes: Is not an important area in which the Kurds could work together with others in Iraq—Shi'a, Sunni, Turkomen, Assyrians, Christians and Jews—the federal trade union movement that is developing quickly in Iraq, in which people work together as teachers, railwaymen and oil workers? What is being done to facilitate the newly emerging movement, which is in desperate need of such facilitation?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because he has long argued that a way to confront some of the historical divisions that exist is through the legitimate pursuit of trade union activity. In that regard, I am pleased that we in the Foreign Office are considering all that we can do to help. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the TUC general secretary and other leading trade unionists last week to discuss that very issue.

Elfyn Llwyd: Going back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), may I suggest to the Minister that now is the time for the occupying powers to call together a true international convention to decide what is to happen to the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq? Many of us were concerned about the plight of those people prior to and during the conflict. Thankfully, things are not as bad as we feared, but it is time to regularise the position, and for the self-determination of those people to be recognised by the international community rather than the occupying forces.

Bill Rammell: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that improvements are being made in Iraq and I understand his concerns about the position of the Kurds. We take that up at every opportunity with all our partners in Iraq and the Iraqi governing council. However, it is critical that we do not impose solutions from the outside on the constitutional structure that Iraq and the Iraqi people should eventually agree for themselves. That will be critical, but the Iraqis must take the process forward.

Pakistan/India

Peter Pike: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Governments of (a) Pakistan and (b) India on progress in dealing with the Kashmir situation.

Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement about cross-border terrorism in India.

Jack Straw: I spoke to both the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers by telephone on 29 October, and met Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri on 4 November in London.
	I welcomed the measures proposed by India and Pakistan to improve further relations between the two countries and encouraged both sides to implement quickly the steps on which they agree and to work together to close the gap on those where there is less common ground, including the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus link. I hope that both sides can continue to work together to resolve their outstanding differences, including in respect of Kashmir.

Peter Pike: At a time when we see some encouraging signs between India and Pakistan, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give every encouragement to both countries to resolve a problem that has existed for 54 years too long? It is a major problem between those two countries and for that part of the world. Does he agree that it would perhaps be helpful if the United Nations were able to monitor equally on both sides of the line of control and publish openly in the public arena its view on the incursions or alleged incursions on either side?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in the continuing dispute, is right to point out that it has gone on for 54 years and remains unresolved. However, there are some hopeful signs, and although there is long-standing suspicion between both sides, the fact that a number of confidence-building measures are already in place is a good augury for the future. I promise my hon. Friend and the House that we in the United Kingdom will remain actively engaged with this, and offer to help both sides in any way they wish. It is a bilateral dispute, but with obvious international implications.
	As for the United Nations monitors, they are on the Pakistani side, but are subject to restrictions by the Pakistani Government, and there would also be restrictions by the Indian Government if they were allowed to operate on the other side. In the short term, I do not see a wider future for such monitoring, although we are examining that carefully. In the end, it is for the parties themselves to agree on the monitoring arrangements that could be put in place. Meanwhile, what is crucial to further stability in the area is a clear reduction in cross-border terrorism.

Andrew Dismore: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has welcomed the 12 confidence-building measures proposed by the Indian Government, but will he do all that he can to ensure that Pakistan ceases its support for cross-border terrorism, and hands over for trial the suspects behind many of the terrorist outrages that have taken place in India, including Dawood Ibrahim, who was responsible for the 1993 bomb that killed 300 people in Mumbai, Masood Azhar, leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, leader of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, who is wanted in connection with the attacks on the Indian Parliament building? Those people are being harboured in Pakistan, and if Pakistan is serious about trying to take the issue forward, they have to be handed over and properly tried.

Jack Straw: We have taken our own action with respect to some of those suspects to freeze their assets. When I was Home Secretary, I proposed the proscription, which the House accepted, of a number of terrorist organisations operating from the Pakistani side of the border. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we continue to encourage the Pakistani authorities to ensure that the obligations that they have publicly given to crack down on infiltration across the border into the Indian side of the line of control are observed in practice.

Martin Smyth: I share the Foreign Secretary's support for the advances that have been made. However, does he accept that internal terrorism, both in India and Pakistan, is not helping the relationship between the two countries?

Jack Straw: Of course I accept that, and we applaud the work of Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Advani in dealing with terrorism within India, and all the courageous efforts by President Musharraf to deal with terrorism, not least al-Qaeda terrorism within Pakistan.

Crispin Blunt: I note that in response to two recent written parliamentary questions the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues declined the opportunity to say that Pakistan is not a state sponsor of terrorism. However, despite all President Musharraf's efforts, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan Government agencies, including the Pakistan army, use artillery fire to cover the infiltration and extraction of terrorists from Kashmir. Should it not therefore be explicitly stated that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism and that that behaviour must stop?

Jack Straw: We have to make our own judgments about that, but I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—we acknowledge the undertakings that the Pakistani Government have given publicly about ending cross-border terrorism. We and the United States in particular, but the whole international community as well, look to the Government of Pakistan to ensure that those undertakings are properly carried out.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a very sad aspect of the dispute is that two of the poorest countries in the world can provide themselves with large nuclear armaments and other weapons yet cannot afford to give their poorest people pure water, housing, and basic health care and education?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend that disproportionate expenditure on defence diverts much-needed resources from other matters. The United Kingdom played its part in helping both sides to pull back from what was literally the brink of nuclear war early in the summer last year. We shall continue to play that part and to urge both India and Pakistan to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty, and we look forward to a situation in which there are no nuclear weapons in that part of the world.

Cyprus

Kevin Brennan: What recent consultations he has had with the Government of Cyprus concerning the reunification of the island.

Denis MacShane: The Foreign Secretary and I met the Cypriot Foreign Minister, Georgios Iacovou, on 3 November. We told him that we hoped that all obstacles and opposition to the Annan plan would be dropped in order to allow a united Cyprus to enter the European Union on 1 May next year.

Kevin Brennan: Is there now a case for making settlement of the Cyprus question a precondition of accession talks with Turkey for membership of the European Union? In particular, can the Minister envisage a situation in which Turkish Cypriots are criminalised by Turkey as a result of their taking EU passports as citizens of the new Republic of Cyprus?

Denis MacShane: Clearly, any citizen of Cyprus who wants a passport that will become an EU passport after 1 May should be allowed to get one. Settlement is not a condition in the sense that the Turkish Government have to meet the Copenhagen criteria within the next 12 months to start accession talks, but it is clear in everybody's mind in Europe that, for Turkey, the road to Europe lies to some extent through Cyprus. That is why we say to the Turkish Government that they would gain enormously from a united Cyprus, one of whose chief officials would be a Turkish-speaking Cypriot sitting at the table negotiating with the Government in Ankara. Although it is not a condition, the political reality is that a settlement of the Cyprus problem and a united Cyprus entering the European Union next May would be an inestimable boost to Turkey's aspirations to European Union membership.

Adrian Flook: In any recent deliberations about the future of Cyprus and reunification, has the matter of Britain's sovereign bases been discussed?

Denis MacShane: The issue of the sovereign bases is raised, but they are precisely that—sovereign bases. I think that the Cypriot Government understand full well that Britain's sovereignty over those bases remains absolute.

Jim Knight: The Minister has already talked about the political reality of the link between reunification of Cyprus and Turkey's accession to the EU. In that context, is he aware of the growing calls for a question on Turkish accession to the EU from those demanding a referendum on the EU constitution in France? Does he agree that that is a very dangerous move?

Denis MacShane: I regret the fact that those calling for a referendum in France are increasingly saying that one of the issues on the referendum ballot paper should be Turkish accession to the EU, with a view, of course, to getting a no vote. That shows the dangers that arise once one goes down the plebiscite road and ignores the parliamentary road of ratifying the EU constitution. I think that Turkish accession would be greatly hindered if the populist plebiscite campaigns against the European constitution treaty gain real force in Europe or in this country.

Richard Spring: Given the report of the European Commission that the resolution of the problem of Cyprus is a serious obstacle to Turkey's accession to the EU, which we fully support, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the outcome of the important elections in north Cyprus, every effort must be made to get a resolution in the next six months, before our friend the Republic of Cyprus formally joins the EU on 1 May?

Denis MacShane: I agree very much, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has put forward very positive positions in discussing Cyprus and Turkey in his travels around Europe. I am glad that he has been maintained in his position as shadow Minister for Europe. It is vital that everyone in Ankara and Nicosia, north and south of the green line, do all that they can to seize this historic opportunity to allow a united Cyprus to enter the European Union. I believe that that will give a tremendous boost to Turkey's aspirations to start accession talks in due course.

Iran

Eric Illsley: What further discussions he has had with the Iranian Government about Iran's nuclear capacity since his visit there.

Jack Straw: I discussed a range of issues of mutual interest with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, on 4 November, including the agreement that the three European Union Foreign Ministers had reached with the Government of Iran on 21 October. The next stage in the process, which we all hope will lead to full compliance by Iran with its obligations, follows the publication of the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday and its consideration by the IAEA board on 20 November.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response and I congratulate him on his successful visit to Iran with his two European counterparts. Can he confirm that Iran will abide by the agreement that he and his counterparts reached while they were in Iran, and stop the enrichment of uranium?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Whether Iran has finally decided to abide by its obligations is a matter that will be considered in the light of the IAEA report, which became available only yesterday. It raises some serious issues, which we are studying. I am glad to note that yesterday the Iranian Government informed the director general of the IAEA that they had decided to suspend, with effect from yesterday, all reprocessing and enrichment-related activities in Iran. Specifically, they had decided to suspend all activities on the Natanz site; not to produce feed material for enrichment processes; and not to import enrichment-related items—an undertaking that we had sought and which the Iranian Government had given in the agreement reached on 21 October. I am glad also that the Government of Iran have made what appears to be a much fuller disclosure than they have ever made before. We all now have to analyse it and will reach decisions—I hope—on 20 November.

Hugo Swire: While I do not wish to denigrate the good work being carried out by Mohamed el-Baradei and his colleagues at the IAEA, some worrying questions remain unresolved—not least the Iranian definition of enriching uranium, which is too narrow. What progress is being made in tracing the country that originally supplied Iran with the equipment that has enabled it to produce highly enriched uranium? Once that country is identified, what action will be taken against it?

Jack Straw: On the latter point, great effort is being made to identify the country concerned and appropriate action will be taken, according to the nature of the information that we have and its provenance. On the first point, everyone accepts that there have been worrying questions about Iran's previous nuclear-related activities. Dr. el-Baradei has been worrying about that, which is why he has been so involved—alongside the rest of us—in hoping to secure a full and complete disclosure in respect of past activities, as well as for future obligations.

Llew Smith: While I support the Government's attempts to get Iran to abide by the non-proliferation treaty, will my right hon. Friend inform the House what this country and the Government are doing to ensure that we too abide by the non-proliferation treaty, to which we are a signatory, and in particular in relation to article 6, under which we are committed to negotiate away in good faith our nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, we are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, but as one of the permanent five members of the Security Council, for historical reasons that the House understands, we are in a special category within the treaty as a nuclear weapon state. However, we fully acknowledge our obligations under article 6 and all the other articles. Indeed, the UK is further ahead in implementing its obligations under article 6, and the other articles, than almost any other country in a comparable position.

Gary Streeter: May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Iran and the Government's constructive engagement with this important issue? But at a time when the negotiations between the international community and the IAEA and the Iranian Government over their nuclear capacity are so delicately poised, how helpful does the Foreign Secretary think that it was for the Prime Minister recently to describe Iran as a rogue repressive state? Is not this a time for clear-headed statesmanship rather than headline-seeking megaphone diplomacy?

Jack Straw: I think that congratulations to the hon. Gentleman are in order, and I am happy to offer them.
	If the hon. Gentleman reads the Prime Minister's remarks, he will clearly see that he was referring to Iraq, and that he made a separate point about Iran.

Western Sahara

John Grogan: If he will make a statement about Government policy towards Western Sahara.

Chris Mullin: The Government seek a just and durable outcome to this long-running dispute that allows the people of Western Sahara to exercise the right to self-determination. We fully support the efforts of the United Nations and the United Nations Secretary-General and his personal envoy, James Baker, and wish to see both sides become flexibly engaged in the search for a long-term solution.

John Grogan: Given that Western Sahara is the last open file at the United Nations Decolonisation Committee, and that the Polisario front has accepted the Baker peace plan, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Moroccan Government also to accept the plan?

Chris Mullin: We are urging both sides to take the Baker plan seriously. The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed it in resolution 1495. The plan is a compromise—it offers something, but not everything, to both sides—and we want them to get together to sort out its implementation.

Iraq

Gareth Thomas: What discussions he has held with other Foreign Ministers on the effect of the security situation in Iraq on the prospects of aid agencies continuing their work in Iraq.

Bill Rammell: The Foreign Secretary regularly discusses Iraq, including its security and reconstruction, with his counterparts. Throughout Iraq, security for most people is improving. We will not be deterred in our efforts to rebuild the country—indeed, we are doing all that we can to ensure that the security that is required for the aid agencies to do their work continues.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but does he accept that the targeting of aid agencies in Iraq is a very grave development? What practical steps can the Government take at ground level to enable those agencies to carry out their crucial work?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We certainly deplore the targeting of aid agencies. Whatever view one has taken on this conflict, it is abominable to see those forces targeting people who are doing their level best to bring security and relief to the Iraqi people. To provide some context, however, security is improving throughout Iraq for most Iraqis—indeed, 80 per cent. of attacks take place in a limited area to the north and north-west of Baghdad. Nevertheless, concerns remain, and we are doing our level best to help in those circumstances. The coalition provisional authority is working closely to improve security for those important aid agencies and we recently committed £6 million to that end through the Department for International Development.

Alistair Carmichael: Is the Minister aware of the report published this morning by Medact, the medical charity, which outlines the real difficulties that are faced by aid agencies and local Iraqi authorities in re-establishing public health programmes? In particular, does he agree with its authors' conclusion that, for the security situation to be improved sufficiently for that to happen, the lead must be taken not by the occupying forces, but by the United Nations?

Bill Rammell: That report was published this morning, and we are studying it in some detail. I would not want to underestimate the fact that there are still difficulties on the ground in Iraq. Nevertheless, one of the worst aspects of Saddam's regime was the appalling public health situation, and despite the difficulties, real improvements are taking place. That is testified to by the views of ordinary Iraqis, especially those advanced in opinion polls, which show that more than two thirds back the actions that were taken and want those that are being taken to continue.

Intergovernmental Conference

Gisela Stuart: If he will make a statement on the progress of the intergovernmental conference.

Denis MacShane: Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and I updated the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference in detail on progress at the IGC. The IGC has so far met four times. In its latest discussion, it covered reform of the system of Council presidencies, the scope of qualified majority voting and non-institutional issues. The next meeting of the IGC will be on 18 November.

Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for that reply. The assumption is that the IGC should be completed under the Italian presidency. Assuming that the Minister agrees that it is more important to get the text right than to finish it, and therefore that having to wait until the feast of the epiphany would not be a disaster, have there been any discussions with the Irish Government about how they might take the IGC over if it had to run on into their presidency?

Denis MacShane: I am not sure that we should wait for three wise kings to solve the problem of the intergovernmental conference. We and our European partners would like to see it finished under the Italian presidency, but that will require compromise in respect of the acceptance of the positions that 25 sovereign states—including this one—are putting forward. We are, however, keeping our fingers crossed and aiming for completion under the Italian presidency.

Anne McIntosh: Following close examination of the text, is the Minister convinced that this country's energy supplies will be safe?

Denis MacShane: Article III-130 of the proposed constitutional treaty states:
	"the Council of Ministers shall unanimously adopt European laws or framework laws establishing . . . measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply."
	In that sense, unanimity—or the veto rule—seems to be underlined. However, article III.157 states:
	"Union policy on energy shall aim to . . . ensure the functioning of the energy market",
	which our energy companies want, because we want to open up Europe's energy market; that will happen under qualified majority voting. It also states that policy will aim to
	"ensure security of energy supply in the Union".
	There is some question on that clause, which we are looking at. I shall meet a delegation from the all-party British offshore oil and gas industry group, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to energy industry leaders about this issue. The matter was also discussed at length in the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference yesterday. The hon. Lady is right to draw the House's attention to it.

Wayne David: Does the Minister agree that the proposals in the draft constitution to strengthen the Council of Ministers underline the fact that the EU is an association of independent sovereign states?

Denis MacShane: That is right. It is important to nail at the Dispatch Box the propaganda lies of those who talk about a European superstate. We are talking about 25 independent sovereign states coming together to strengthen the workings of Europe. For 500 years, it has been English, then British, policy not to allow a continental grouping to come together from which we would be isolated or in which we would have no influence. I find it odd that the isolationist tendency on the Conservative Front Bench has been strengthened in the reshuffle. We shall maintain Britain as an active partner in Europe and defeat the Tory isolationists.

Angus Robertson: In yesterday's Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, the Foreign Secretary gave an assurance that the UK Government would seek to rescind or amend the controversial energy chapters that have already been mentioned in this question. Will the Minister for Europe repeat the commitment of the UK Government to have those chapters removed entirely from the draft treaty? When will Government representatives be able to come to the House to confirm that that has happened?

Denis MacShane: As I have said, I shall receive a delegation of hon. Members on this issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the energy industry when he seeks to remove any reference to the need for an open market in energy, because that is something that the British Government have always stressed in any discussions on this matter. A requirement for unanimity is contained in article III-130. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's persistence in the Standing Committee. The Committee, which was set up by the House, has had two sittings. Just one Conservative Member attended the first, and only two out of the 165 attended last night. They talk about the importance of Europe, yet they do not even turn up at the Standing Committee set up to discuss the issue. That is a disgraceful performance.

Saudi Arabia

Lawrie Quinn: What recent representations he has received about travel advice for UK citizens travelling to Saudi Arabia.

Jack Straw: On 24 October, I agreed changes to Foreign Office travel advice to Saudi Arabia to say that we believe that
	"terrorists may be in the final phases of planning attacks".
	Tragically, the abhorrent attack that took place last weekend showed how important it is for Foreign Office travel advice clearly to warn British nationals of the threats that they face overseas. I would like to take this opportunity to repeat my utter condemnation of the hideous barbarity of the terrorist action that took place in Riyadh over the weekend. These murderers have shown absolute contempt for Islam and for peoples of all nations. This was indiscriminate murder of men, women and children of various nationalities, but overwhelmingly those of the Islamic faith.
	I have sent heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims, and a message to that effect to Prince al-Saud, the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister. The British ambassador in Riyadh, Sherard Cowper-Coles, to whom I spoke yesterday, and his staff, will remain in close contact with the Saudi authorities about this.

Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that all hon. Members want to associate themselves with the actions taken by the Foreign Secretary following the deplorable attack at the weekend. Given the travel advice to British nationals, can he update the House on the effectiveness of that advice? How will it impinge on commercial activities between the two kingdoms?

Jack Straw: Terrorist attacks are designed to disrupt the economies and ordinary life of the countries in which they take place. That is an inevitable consequence of the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia. That said, the Saudi authorities are doing everything they can to detect and deter those terrorists. There is a large expatriate British population in Saudi Arabia, as well as a great number of visitors. Our travel advice is constantly updated. We take it very seriously indeed. It can only be as good as the intelligence we receive, and all the time we have to set a balance between ensuring that, above all, proper warning is given, as we were able to give on 24 October in respect of the information that we had received, while, at the same time, not doing the terrorists' job for them, which is to bring normal life completely to a halt.

Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his intelligence sources on their timely action. Does he agree that one reason why Saudi Arabia is suffering is the fact that it is now seriously addressing the terrorist problem in its midst? Will he do everything he can to encourage the Saudi authorities not to be deterred by those terrorist responses, because only when the cancer is cut out will it be safe for people to travel to that country and to live in the countries of the middle east?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. I am in absolutely no doubt of the overwhelming determination of the Saudi Government and the Saudi authorities to detect the terrorists who committed those outrages in order to deter others. Significantly, this action has been condemned in unqualified terms by senior religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, which is a message not only to those in Saudi, but across the whole Islamic world.

Israel

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent discussions he has had with the Israeli Government about the building of the security wall.

Bill Rammell: On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear to the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister our concerns about the route of the fence. It should not be built in the occupied territory. Baroness Symons raised the matter with the Israeli Foreign Minister during her visit to Israel on 30 September. Indeed, we have taken numerous other opportunities to raise this critical concern.

Mark Lazarowicz: I welcome my hon. Friend's clear statement on the Government's behalf about the construction of the wall, but he will know that the continued construction of a separation wall, as well as inflicting misery on the Palestinians, particularly those living near the wall, is also jeopardising whatever slim hopes are left for a middle east peace process. In the light of that, will he tell the House what the Government are doing to try to take forward the middle east peace process?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I would not wish to underestimate the fact that we are gravely concerned about the prospects for peace in the middle east. In that regard, it is vital that both sides realise how much is at stake. We certainly remain fundamentally committed to the road map. It is the only mechanism that we can see for the issue to be resolved. If such a structure did not exist, it would have to be invented. It is therefore critical that the Palestinian Authority make efforts to stop the terrorists and, at the same time, that the Israelis commit, through parallel moves, to tackling settlements, the fence, freedom of movement and the halting of extra-judicial killings.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister rightly says that he is fully committed to the success of the road map. Does he accept that, in the view of many people, it will not succeed without a major diplomatic initiative? It must be properly resourced, and there must be full commitment on the part of a major worldwide institution, such as the United Nations or the European Union, rather than the current rather under-resourced effort.

Bill Rammell: The implementation of the road map remains a critical diplomatic priority for the Government. We raise it at every opportunity. A strong United States-led commitment to the road map-based process is also critical. I believe that that commitment is there; certainly the case for it has not changed. Additionally, we need a strong role for the Quartet—closely following road map implementation through the reports of monitors, and making an extra effort when it detects problems or deficiencies.
	Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we consider this matter hugely important, and take every opportunity to press it forward diplomatically.

Identity Cards

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on identity cards and the publication of an explanatory paper, a copy of which is available in the Vote Office.
	The Government have decided to begin the process of building a base for a national compulsory identity card scheme. We intend to proceed incrementally, starting by establishing a database and introducing new technology in passports and driving licences. As I explained in the policy paper published in July last year, a scheme of this scale and complexity would always have to be phased. As I said then,
	"it will, by its very nature, take some time should the government decide to legislate to get the card into place."
	The House will know that since making my statement I have been consulting widely on, for instance, issues relating to secure verification and identification.
	We are on entirely new territory here. It appears that many people think we are talking about an old-style card with a photograph; we are not. We undertook the consultation because of the enormity and pace of change. Such change makes it increasingly difficult to protect and authenticate the identities of those seeking work or trying to avail themselves of free public services—but the development of specific personal identifiers, known as biometrics, offers us an opportunity to do just that. It would mean that identity could not be forged or duplicated. Techniques such as fingerprinting, face recognition and use of the iris allow us to develop a database capable of foiling attempts to duplicate or steal identity. Such developments will enable us to deal with growing threats to the security and prosperity of Britain from identity theft, fraud and illegal migration.
	Two developments have emerged since our earlier discussions of identity cards: the changed world in which we are operating, and the introduction of new biometric identifiers. There is almost universal international support for the idea of developing such identifiers. The United States, for instance, is about to introduce a scheme requiring people to have biometric passports if they wish to benefit from existing visa waivers. Those without them will increasingly find themselves exploited and targeted by international criminals. In such circumstances public demand for action would become overwhelming, and without these developments Britain would have missed an opportunity to protect ourselves and promote the best interests of individuals and families.
	The security services have indicated to me that they would value improved methods of verifying identity and counteracting the use of multiple identities. It is obvious that terrorist networks would target the countries that had made the least progress in developing the capacity to provide this protection.
	All of us know that identity fraud costs us dear. As individuals, as corporate entities and as a nation, we are open to tremendous exploitation. It is therefore common sense to prepare now for the future.
	As I have indicated, it would not be possible to issue cards to the whole population through a big bang approach, even if that were desirable. We therefore intend to proceed in two phases. In phase 1, we would begin to issue biometric identifiers through the renewal of passport and driving licences. As I said in the consultation paper last year,
	"as well as being convenient for the general population, building on the driving licence and passport systems would help to spread demand for the new documents and avoid delays in issuing them promptly".
	As soon as the database was available, we would commence issuing identity cards to EU and foreign nationals seeking to remain in the country. We would also make available an optional card for those who do not have, or wish to have, a passport or driving licence.
	We will move ahead now with all the necessary preparation, but the final decision on a move to the second stage of the scheme, which involves compulsion, will rest with Parliament. Clearly, the Government will only take a step of that magnitude after a rigorous evaluation of the first stage, when we are confident that there is widespread take-up and acceptance of the scheme and that the benefits outweigh costs and the risks.
	We would also need to be sure that the concessions were working satisfactorily for those on low incomes and other vulnerable groups. Finally, we would need to be satisfied that all the technical, financial and administrative preparations were in place for the final roll-out in order to deliver the benefits that we have described. Draft legislation will allow further consultation on all these issues.
	Parliament would determine under strict criteria what identifiers were necessary on the chip contained in the card and, therefore, what should be held on the database itself. It would not be necessary, for instance, to hold the address of the individual on the face of the card, as with current driving licences, therefore reducing rather than increasing risk.
	Let me now turn to a number of issues that I know have been of public concern. In relation to cost, were we to add biometrics to existing identity documents, which I think most people believe is inevitable, we would incur all the expense and the technological development necessary, but without securing the gains. These include clamping down on illegal residents, illegal working and the exploitation of free public services.
	The ID card scheme will make it possible to make all these benefits available to those who might not need, or want, a driving licence or passport and who could not otherwise afford such an identity document. We will provide a free card for 16-year-olds, a concessionary charge for those on low incomes, including those in retirement, and the option of a lifelong card for those renewing at the age of 75—[Laughter.] Well, under Labour, you live longer.
	We are also looking urgently at how benefits in the business and commercial world can further reduce the overall cost, again in a way that would not be possible by updating passports and driving licences.
	To avoid accusations of underestimating the cost, we have chosen to build in a substantial contingency. We estimate that the basic cost, over a ten-year period, would be £35. All but a very small amount of that would be necessary in introducing biometrics in any case. The addition would be in the region of around £4, spread over the ten-year period. We will ensure that the basic cost of a card could be paid for by individuals in a variety of ways. Some people could choose to pay incrementally, through mechanisms such as saving stamps and credits.

Simon Hughes: On the never-never.

David Blunkett: Yes, like BBC licences, for instance.
	I emphasise that it will not be compulsory for anyone to have to carry the card with them, any more than it is with the driving licence today. Although use of the card would be very helpful to public services, it would not be necessary to present a card to access those services until the scheme became compulsory. Clearly, however, as the card will be the most reliable form of identity, gradually it will become commonplace and convenient to use it. Of course, no one will be denied access to emergency services because they do not have a card.
	To protect the private details of individuals, Parliament will prescribe the information to be held on the chip and on the database. Information would be limited to that required to verify identity. Privacy and confidentiality would be an essential part of the system. The protection of civil liberties would be assured in a way that is not the case for a whole range of commercial identifiers and card systems in widespread use at the moment.
	Let me make it clear: no one has anything to fear from being correctly identified, but everything to fear from having their identity stolen or misused. Focus groups and polling evidence demonstrate that there is around 80 per cent. support for identity cards. As the cost of secure identification will be necessary with or without ID cards, I believe that the proposals that I am setting out will win widespread support.
	This is about asserting our sense of identity and belonging; about our citizenship; about reinforcing the balance between rights and responsibilities. That is why I commend this statement to the House and why I am asking for a sensible and thoughtful debate. This is all about addressing the future and having the courage to modernise and to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in allowing me advance copies of his statement and the paper. I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, who has now been promoted to shadow Chancellor after doing a brilliant job as shadow Home Secretary. I say to the Home Secretary that, inevitably, there will be a difference in style in the coming months and years, but I shall endeavour to extend to him just as much courtesy as did my predecessor.
	Last summer, the Home Secretary announced that the Government were consulting on introducing identity cards. He stressed that they wanted an open and enthusiastic debate to take place across Britain. The loudest debate that I have witnessed is the internal argument in the Government, usually conducted via leaks to the Sunday newspapers.
	The statement that we heard from the Home Secretary today is the result of that argument. It is a compromise and a 10-year deferral, designed to appease the Prime Minister and those in the Cabinet who support introducing ID cards, and the Foreign Secretary and others who believe that such a scheme will not work. Indeed, I have a copy of the now famous letter from the Foreign Secretary to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary said on the radio this morning that that letter is out of date—after four or five weeks. Let me quote from the Foreign Secretary's letter:
	"I remain unconvinced by the overall policy. I believe that the proposed plan is flawed, and that no tinkering with particular issues will be able to resolve what is a fundamental political matter."
	There are two fundamental issues at the heart of the debate on ID cards: first, do they work, and secondly, what are the implications for civil liberties? On both counts, the Government have failed the test today. On the first issue, let me quote just one of the Foreign Secretary's five major attacks on this policy:
	"we must be clear we will never be able to require from all people the production of a card to access employment or services. There will be large numbers of people who will be entitled to both without a card, starting with EU nationals, who will be able to stay and work here for three months without any official documentation. Other groups both of UK citizens resident abroad and other categories of third-country nationals will also need exceptions. This is an obvious loophole for illegals to exploit, given poor security of some EU documents."
	So my first question to the Home Secretary is: what is his response to that criticism, and will ID cards really tackle illegal immigration? The Home Secretary says that it will not be compulsory to carry the cards, so what happens when the police stop somebody in the street who does not have an ID card, which, under his proposals, would be perfectly legal? What will the police officer do? Will he ask them to bring their card to a police station in, say, five days' time? The innocent law-abiding citizen will of course do exactly that, despite the inconvenience. The illegal immigrant, however, will just disappear. So the second question is, does the Home Secretary really think that this is a workable proposal?
	What of the terrorist threat that the Home Secretary referred to? How would an ID card have prevented the events of 11 September? He accepts in his proposals that foreign nationals will be able to spend three months at a time in the United Kingdom without an ID card. Does he seriously think that foreign terrorists having to divide their visits to the UK into three-month periods—or, even more simply, having to change their foreign documents every three months—will much handicap them? How does he intend to deal with that?
	The Home Secretary also mentioned benefit fraud. As a former Public Accounts Committee Chairman—[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] Clearly, this is not known on the Government Benches. As a former PAC Chairman, I can tell him that the vast majority of social security fraud results from people making false claims about their health or economic circumstances, not about their identity. I am not sure what difference the scheme would make in this regard, either.
	The second major issue is, what are the implications of all this for civil liberties? Here, the Home Secretary's statement and his paper are worryingly opaque. Two questions need to be answered. First, precisely what information will be held at any time on compulsory ID cards? Secondly, who will have access to them? The implication of his statement and his paper is that Parliament will be asked to vote on the principle of an ID card, and that the details will be introduced later by regulation. That is unacceptable. We cannot approve ID cards on the basis of vague promises and generalisations. The Home Secretary will no doubt try to reassure us on the question of who has access to information on the cards. But when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was introduced, we were told that only the police and a few agencies would have access to private communications. Now, that list has been expanded massively, by regulation, to include bodies ranging from local authorities to the Post Office. I fear that exactly the same encroachment of state interference in private lives will happen if ID cards are introduced in this country.
	This Government do not have a track record of respect for individuals and their privacy, or, indeed, for their reputations. We have witnessed in many affairs— such as those involving Pam Warren, Rose Addis and Martin Sixsmith—the Government's willingness to seek and to use private information against ordinary people. There is nothing in today's statement about serious safeguards to prevent such abuses from happening again.
	There are huge costs associated with this policy, but the Government have failed to advance any convincing arguments as to why these cards should be introduced. This is a compromise and a massive deferral. It is the latest headline-grabbing initiative to cover splits in the Government. As the proposal stands, it will not stop terrorists, catch fraudsters or deter illegal immigrants, but it will cost the taxpayer billions.

David Blunkett: I should genuinely like to welcome the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—and, of course, his colleagues—to his place on the Front Bench. I do so genuinely in the spirit of knowing that there will be a different style of opposition. I also wish his predecessor good fortune in his new role: he always did his homework, he was always thoughtful and he always had something meaningful to say at the Dispatch Box. I rest my case.
	Are we clear about whether the right hon. Gentleman is, in his first outing, in favour of moving forward, first, to introduce biometric identifiers to existing documents and, secondly, to make them universal by introducing compulsion and having an ID card, or is it a matter of being against deferral? There was a contradiction in what the right hon. Gentleman said. If someone is against deferral, they should by all means come forward with a set of suggestions about how to issue more quickly the biometric identifiers and therefore a card that would work or to clarify whether it should be introduced outside the passport and driving licence framework, which allows us to proceed in a phased, incremental and technologically acceptable way.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Foreign Secretary's concerns, but I have been able to meet all of them. The specific concerns were about issues surrounding EU nationals. We have been able to satisfy the EU that it is perfectly feasible to translate the residence permit into an ID card, and we will do so. Anyone staying in this country more than three months will, wherever they come from, be issued with an ID card, and I hope to proceed with that as soon as the system is up and running. All the other concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, including the numbers to be dealt with.
	I am now bound to move on to the question of the benefits. There will be no exemptions from the scheme. That is what compulsory means: when it is introduced, there will be no exceptions, so no one can defraud the system or pretend to be someone else. Illegal migrants would not only have to present the card if they wanted to work, but would have to do so if they wanted to draw on existing services. Given that we have a free national health service and that the current chairman of the Conservative party advocated an NHS card only a few months ago, I presume that such a card would have to be universal and compulsory to stop illegal migrants accessing it.
	As to the police, there would have to be safeguards, but we would have to give them the ability to require acquisition of the card if they believe that someone has committed an act that amounts to an arrestable offence. That seems a perfectly sensible way forward, and with the use of new technology, the biometric could be taken in or out of the station. That is how we are currently developing the livescan system.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised a very serious issue about terrorism. I said in my statement that the security services had informed me that they thought that the card would be valuable. They did so because a third of known terrorists and terrorist network supporters use multiple identities in this country in order to ply their dreadful trade by raising money and providing support. That is the basis on which I believe that an identity card of the sort that we are outlining today would make a difference.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about fraud and benefits. In fact, I did not say "benefit fraud"; I said "fraud", referring to the £1.3 billion lost through private and public fraud. If we are talking about benefits, I have never ever publicly indicated that an ID card would solve benefit fraud or be a major contributor to solving it, though we believe that about £100 million a year would be saved in benefit and related systems from introducing an ID card.
	Finally, there is the question of civil liberties. Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to set out what will be on the card and how it will operate. Incidentally, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act did not lay down a series of tight parameters which were then expanded. The Act did not lay any down, and the parameters were being operated in the private sector. It was the private sector that required us to lay down by order, rather than in the legislation, the areas that required regulation under the 2000 Act. I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman feels more secure in his shadow post, he will catch up with the crucial details that make a difference.
	The central question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me was whether the civil liberties issues and the requirements on the chip in the card and on the database would be spelled out in the Bill. The answer is yes. However, if we are not clear this afternoon about where the official Opposition stand on whether the scheme is being delayed too long or on whether it amounts to too much, perhaps they could enlighten us later. They could explain how they square their position with the apposite words said on 23 September 2001:
	"Britain is the easiest country in Western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem there is one obvious remedy—identity cards."
	Those were the words of the new leader of the Conservative party.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement, although the contents would, frankly, have been no surprise to anyone, because he seems determined to push ahead with ID cards despite considerable opposition from his own party. As was not the case with the official Opposition, I want to make the Liberal Democrat position crystal clear: we are fundamentally opposed to ID cards.
	The Home Secretary plans a stage-by-stage approach. Can he confirm that he will review each stage, and that if the changes to passports and driving licences that he plans result in major difficulties, he will abandon his plans to move ahead with ID cards? He has been able to provide us with the cost to individuals of ID cards, but can he give a commitment today on the Floor of the House that the new passports will not increase in cost for individuals? He has great faith in the use of biometrics, but can he confirm that he has no plans to introduce ID cards without biometrics? On ID cards themselves, does he acknowledge the problems surrounding the falsification of cards and the false sense of security that can be created in respect of terrorism?
	Finally, can the Home Secretary provide information on the costs to Government of the initial phase that he is planning and the projected costs of introducing ID cards? Does he not recognise that the billions of pounds involved in the ID card project would be much better spent on providing more police in this country to make our streets safer and tackle crime? That is what the public want—not a card that will do nothing to tackle fraud or terrorism.

David Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. As applies to all Liberal Democrats, the freedom to change one's mind comes frequently and often—and that applies to ID cards. The hon. Gentleman, now representing the Liberal Democrats, was in favour of ID cards when he voted in favour of a ten-minute Bill less than a year ago. He is certainly, in his own words, "fundamentally opposed": he is fundamentally opposed to anything that gets in his opportunist way. That is what it is all about.

Mark Oaten: Answer the question.

David Blunkett: So let us deal with the questions. Will we refuse to increase the charge for new passports? How could we possibly say here, now, that there will be no new charges for new biometric passports in the future? What a very silly hon. Gentleman. Of course we cannot give such a guarantee, but the real issue is whether the Liberal Democrats want to block the introduction of biometrics in passports. If that happened, how on earth would we be able to deal with the American situation that I outlined, and the development—just beginning in the Schengen countries—of biometric visas and ID cards? I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of Schengen and Europe-wide developments—or is that another fundamental principle that they have abandoned this afternoon?
	No, we will not introduce non-biometric ID cards. That was what the hon. Gentleman asked me. Yes, we will be able to deal with falsification. The creation of a database on which the specific identifier will be held will prevent people from being able to duplicate identities, or to pretend to have someone else's identity, because it will be possible to check that against the database.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about initial costs. We have estimated total set-up costs and revenue over the first three years at around £36 million, £60 million and £90 million, respectively. Finally, he asked whether it would not be better to spend the money on more police. I thought that the Liberal Democrats were mounting a campaign claiming that council taxes were far too high. I thought that they were preparing for next year, when they would say that local councils should not raise too much money, and that central Government should meet more in the way of costs. The charge under debate will be met by each person who receives a card for a service from which he or she will benefit.
	Is that cost to be met through national or local taxation, according to the Liberal Democrats? How will they explain to electors that money raised through a greater charge on the council tax is to be diverted to pay for the biometric ID, passport or driving licence, and that it will not be used to pay for local policing? Of course they do not know how they will explain that, as they are totally confused and muddled.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now time for questions from Back-Bench Members. I must inform the House that hon. Members must ask only supplementary questions, and that they must keep their questions brief.

John Denham: I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Home Affairs Committee agreed this morning to hold an inquiry into all aspects of the scheme, including the practicalities of the draft legislation. However, does he agree that there is an issue of principle confronting Parliament? We wish to live in a world where millions of people can move in and out of the country every week, for work, business and leisure. At the same time, we want to ensure that valuable public services—education, health, the benefits system and housing—are available only to those who are entitled to them, and that those who work here meet their obligations to pay tax and national insurance. Is not the issue of principle that there must be an effective system of personal identification? That would ensure that people were free to travel, and that individuals had clear entitlements and obligations.

David Blunkett: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. That is precisely the issue that the rest of the developed world is addressing. We must not be left behind, so that is why we acting today to ensure that we address the matter openly and sensibly.

Edward Garnier: Will the Home Secretary accept that the latest technology must be used if the new identity cards are introduced, and that complaints about biometric developments are beside the point? However, both history and logic tell us that an effective system requires that carrying an identity card is compulsory for everyone. Is not that the principle with which he must come to grips—whether he is prepared to breach people's civil liberties and make carrying the card compulsory?

David Blunkett: On his first question, the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right: biometrics are going to be with us, with or without ID cards. On his second question, the Government have accepted the principle that he outlined, and we are clear that to achieve the full effect—on illegal working and the illegal use of free public services—we would have to move to compulsion. I accept that.

Andrew Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is naive if he expects the Home Office to be able to introduce this card without major problems arising, given its track record? Is not he naive also in thinking that criminals will not find a way to subvert the system? Is not the fundamental problem that carrying a card must be made compulsory, and that people will have to have it with them at all times? Otherwise, it will not deliver all the benefits that he hopes for.

David Blunkett: I do not accept my hon. Friend's final point—not least because it will be possible to reference the identifiers against the ID base, without using the card. That will be a technological change for the future.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the problems involved in introducing the card, but every Department—not least my own—faces a challenge when introducing and developing technology. However, it should be noted that, although the UK Passport Service faced huge difficulties, the satisfaction rate that it achieves is now 99 per cent. Also, we are turning around work permits in 24 hours. So there is hope for the Government, and it is possible for public service to work. We intend to make sure that it can work.
	On my hon. Friend's second question, of course organised criminals will attempt to duplicate the cards fraudulently. However, it will be a major challenge to duplicate the irises of people's eyes, or all three biometric identifiers. Any Government who do not believe that they should take on and defeat those people are desperate and despairing.

Peter Lilley: Will the Home Secretary confirm that all asylum seekers already must have an identity document, that all have been fingerprinted since July 1993, and that no illegal immigrant can obtain benefits or work legally without a unique national insurance number? To get such a number, people need to claim asylum, and present the relevant documents. The Home Secretary does not require anyone to carry the documents to which I have referred, so how will extending the requirement to possess an ID card to British citizens help to control illegal immigration one iota?

David Blunkett: I can certainly confirm that I introduced the asylum registration card for asylum seekers, but I must contradict the right hon. Gentleman on one point: from 2000, all asylum seekers who presented themselves to the authorities were fingerprinted, but the fingerprinting facility was not automatically available from 1993 onwards.
	I can confirm too that our scheme will catch illegal residents, immigrants and workers. I did not mention asylum seekers. The ones who will be caught will not be able to identify themselves; if they try, however, it will be possible to show that the relevant identifier is not present in the database.

Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Dover, on this side of the channel, are overwhelmingly in favour of compulsory identity cards? More important, police and immigration officers in France, on the other side of the channel, cite Britain's lack of an ID regime as the primary pull factor that attracts illegal immigration over here.

David Blunkett: I can confirm entirely that, whenever Britain raises the issue of the pull factor on illegal migration or asylum, other countries in Europe point decisively to the fact that we do not have an ID card scheme. That is the experience of previous Governments too. Our scheme will be materially different from, and much more secure than, the schemes that operate in Europe at present. To make their systems more secure, other countries are moving towards the provisions that we have set out today—namely, the use of specific identifiers.

Lady Hermon: I may not be exactly a David Trimble lookalike, but I can say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that Ulster Unionist Members support ID cards—at least those of us who take the party Whip do. I can say that because no one else is here.
	May I remind the Home Secretary that long hours were spent on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which introduced electoral identity cards in Northern Ireland, because thousands of people, especially elderly women, did not have driving licences or passports? Will the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, include electoral identity cards in the biometric technology?

David Blunkett: First, may I say that the hon. Lady looks fine from where I am standing?
	I shall talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about the hon. Lady's proposal as it has wider implications, but I think she is right to say that there should be links to electoral registration. That would be very welcome indeed.

Stephen McCabe: I am a convert to the idea so I understand that people may have anxieties. My constituents tell me that they do not want an excessive charge, but they are fed up with the excessive charges made on them at present due to people who illegally use our public services and put extra strain on the police and security forces. Is not that what we need to tackle?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. His comments are reinforced by an hon. Member who told me at the last Home Office questions that
	"taxpayers have an equal right to be able to ascertain the identities of those citizens who wish to claim benefits . . . I wish him well."—[Official Report, 27 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 18.]
	That individual—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)—has just been appointed to the Opposition Front Bench. I agree with both of them.

Douglas Hogg: While I acknowledge that there may be policing and other benefits from identity cards, I am troubled by the civil rights implications. Does the Home Secretary understand that many of us suspect that in order to make the policy effective he will require the compulsory carriage of the card at all times and the production of the card to a police officer, and that he will have to give police officers the right to arrest in the event of non-production? Surely, that will be sus writ large, with all the associated abuses and problems, so will the Home Secretary give the House a guarantee that the requirements that I have just mentioned will not be incorporated in his proposals?

David Blunkett: Such requirements will not be incorporated because it is not necessary. The police have told us that if they suspect that someone is undertaking something that is an arrestable offence, they would require proof of identity. If the person could not prove their identity, the police would of course apprehend them and would try to find out their true identity. The point of the card is not the card itself, but that it offers an authorised method of proving true and verifiable identity. That is at the root of what we are trying to do.

Kevin Hughes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Is he aware that there is a great deal of support for his proposals, not least from members of the Labour party? In a survey that I made recently of Labour party members in my constituency, 92 per cent. were in favour of the proposals. Their message to me and my message to my right hon. Friend is, "Get on with it as soon as possible".

David Blunkett: I always feel better when I know that I have the Labour party behind me.

Simon Thomas: Now that the Government have come clean about this identity tax—a poll tax to end all poll taxes—is not it clear that one piece of identity fraud has been revealed: the fraud that the Labour party is the party of civil liberties, personal freedom and the rights of individuals in this country? If the Government go ahead with their proposals and make them compulsory, what guarantees of civil liberty will we have? Will we have a written constitution? Will we have a right of access to personal information held about us by the Government? Will we have the right to privacy? Those questions need to be answered before we tackle compulsion for ID cards.

David Blunkett: If it were heat not light that we wanted to emerge from the Welsh nationalists, we should all be well away.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is clear. As I indicated, Parliament will lay down what will be on the chip and on the database. Parliament will determine the civil liberties protections. I have already spelled out the fact that we do not expect the chip or the database to hold more information than is already required for passports and driving licences. One would have to be particularly wild to suggest that passports and driving licences have taken away people's liberties—[Hon. Members: "He is wild".] Yes, my hon. Friends are probably right.

Tony Wright: I recently discovered my identity card, which was issued in 1948, and feel that I was neither more nor less free then than I am now. Is not a lot of nonsense talked about the civil liberties side of the matter? The only issue that really matters is whether the system will work, and for it to work it will have to be compulsory. Surely that is not an add-on extra; it is integral to the scheme.

David Blunkett: That is precisely why I sought the agreement of the Cabinet to the principle, and that agreement was secured. I agree with my hon. Friend. After all, only a few months ago, Frederick Forsyth, whom I respect as a writer although not as a political thinker, and I both had our identities stolen. In my case, bizarrely, it was so that the BBC could demonstrate that it could obtain a driving licence in my name. Well, good luck.

Richard Shepherd: Did I understand the Home Secretary correctly when he said that someone who did not produce a card would be taken, under compulsion, to the police station? It seems logical. But what about the millions of mothers on the school run, for example, who pick up primary school children? If they fail to carry their card, will they be taken to the police station? These proposals hit at—

David Blunkett: rose—

Richard Shepherd: No, no, Home Secretary.
	The proposals hit at the very sense of liberty of British citizens who have the freedom to move around without being impeded in perfectly lawful tasks.

David Blunkett: I can definitely, definitely confirm that picking one's child up from school is not an arrestable offence, nor will it require people to carry the card or to present it—as long as the teachers know which child they are handing over to which parent.

David Winnick: I, for one, welcome the Cabinet discussion that took place; it was a good thing for the democratic process. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that those of us who strenuously oppose the proposals do not believe that an identity card will bring about what he has been describing? If it would do so, I should be willing to change my mind, especially in respect of terrorism. I hoped that the scheme would be dropped, but as it has not been I accept that this is the best possible compromise until—shall we say?—another time.

David Blunkett: I am grateful for the qualified support of my hon. Friend. There are people who genuinely disagree with the whole principle as regards where we are going—even on biometrics. There are those who disagree with the previous scheme, which did not include biometrics, identifiers and safeguards. I believe that my hon. Friend was opposed to the latter scheme and I hope eventually to be able to win him over.

Owen Paterson: The Home Secretary is setting great store by the value of biometrics, but what evidence is there that criminal gangs and sophisticated terrorists will not get ahead of the technology and produce workable forgeries that will render this oppressive exercise both expensive and pointless?

David Blunkett: I have to work with the best advice available and currently it would be extraordinary if even the most sophisticated criminals could duplicate identities in the way that has been described. We are not simply talking about duplicating what is on the chip, but what is on the database. When the card is presented, what is read on the screen must accord with what is on the database. If it does not match, that person is automatically disqualified.

Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the kind of totalitarian state envisaged by George Orwell does not spring up overnight. He needs to proceed cautiously with this venture. In what way did the consultation on entitlement cards inform the decisions that he has told us about in the statement today?

David Blunkett: We consulted for a year. We had a lot of local consultation, including using local radio and local newspapers. One of the reasons why we now describe the card as an ID card is precisely that public opinion showed that people were clear about what that term means and that they prefer it to the term, "entitlement card". We also undertook focus groups across the country, all of which, whatever their ethnicity and socio-economic make-up, produced the same level of support and very similar questions.

Vincent Cable: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge the criticism made by his colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has pointed to the extreme technological sophistication of the information technology that would be required and the fact that the National Audit Office says that only 30 per cent. of such systems have ever succeeded in the past? What assurances has the right hon. Gentleman had from those in the IT industry that they can make the system operate other than at vast cost to the taxpayer?

David Blunkett: We now have an entirely new process in place. The Office of Government Commerce undertakes gateway reviews. We have been through a pre-zero gateway review already—we would not have reached this stage without doing so—and we will go to the next stage of the gateway review and clearance in January. We will not proceed—this will need to be done in parallel with the Bill—to set up the system until the further stage has been gone through later next year and we are satisfied, both internally and from external verification, that the scheme can and will work. We will have to do that to introduce biometrics in passports. My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will shortly announce a pilot programme for biometrics in passports, just as we have already begun a pilot programme for biometrics in visas.

Jon Owen Jones: Is it not axiomatic that those on the left should defend the welfare state? Does the Home Secretary agree that no welfare state can be sustainable unless it prescribes and defines those who are entitled to its services? Can he give any indication or estimate of the number of people or the cost to the health service of people using it who are not entitled to do so?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who helpfully joined us earlier, for which I was grateful to him, is undertaking such work. He and I believe that we could be talking about hundreds of millions rather tens of millions of pounds. We know of no way, nor did the Opposition until today, to protect us from the misuse of those free services other than to have a form of identification that entitles people to use them by dint of being citizens of this country, not for another reason. Given that we have the only free health service in the world, such a system would be a major safeguard against those who would want to erode the health service and those who would use any excuse to encourage people to be against that free service. Such a system would ensure that we protect the health service from those who misuse it.

Angela Watkinson: Identity cards would be very effective in controlling those law-abiding people who volunteer to have them and who hold legal driving licences and passports, but those people do not need identifying and controlling. The challenge is to control criminals and those people who are in this country illegally, so how will the Home Secretary overcome the problem of fraudulently held cards and those people who hold no cards at all and who work cash in hand?

David Blunkett: There are two reasons why the full benefits cannot be attained without compulsion. The crucial issue is not presenting a card, but verifying the identity on the database. Someone could pretend to be someone else, but they could not do so once the card had been swiped and their identity had been shown to be false on the database. That is the crucial difference, and I will clearly have to explain it time and again over the years ahead. This is not a photograph on an old-fashioned card, but the ability to use a database—as with credit cards, loyalty cards and a plethora of commercially available cards, which often do not have the safeguards that we are talking about—to identify whether people are who they say they are, and those who believe that the commercial sector should not be doing that need to say so.

Brian White: The Home Secretary will be aware, as his earlier responses show, that the commercial sector is developing schemes to link identity to uniqueness. Given the history of leading-edge technology not delivering the objectives set, will he give an assurance that he will work with the private sector in considering authentication standards and that he will consider a dispersed system, rather than a single database, which, once breached, is the least secure form of database?

David Blunkett: Now that we have agreed the principle and I have reported to Parliament, we can open serious discussions with the commercial sector in relation not simply to the justified safeguards to which my hon. Friend refers, but to the commercial possibilities for Britain in being ahead of the game worldwide, as other countries rapidly move to adopt similar systems. If we can do that, we will have a double gain of protecting our people, while promoting our economic and trade interests.

Henry Bellingham: The Home Secretary has said a great deal about driving licences and passports, but what about other official forms of ID, such as military identification cards, Government passes and MPs' passes? Can they not be configured so that they can contain biometric data?

David Blunkett: Yes they can, which is why the Secretary of State for Defence is so strongly in favour of the proposals and has been helpfully supportive of me in the consultation process.

Frank Field: As a third of all taxpayers' money goes in supporting the social security budget, does the Home Secretary accept that that budget above all others offers the richest pickings to those gangs specialising in identity fraud? Will he therefore give us some idea of when he expects the Government to be able to introduce the first ever secure gateway to our benefits system? That will not only give huge financial gains—perhaps enough to pay for this programme—but increase substantially the support for the welfare state that already exists in the country because taxpayers will know that their taxes are going where they should go.

David Blunkett: I accept entirely the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend. People will want that security. I cannot give an exact date, partly because of the issues that have been raised this afternoon, but not by my right hon. Friend. It is very strange that the people, including those in the press, who have berated me for being too slow ask all the types of question rightly asked this afternoon that indicate that we have to take our time to get it right. Starting now allows us to be ahead of the game; starting in five years' time would take us five years down a road on which we would have to adopt all the same careful steps that I am enunciating this afternoon.

Crispin Blunt: Given the issues involved and the difficult compromises between civil liberties and effectiveness in tackling benefit fraud and so on, would it not be appropriate for the proposals to be decided on a free vote in the House?

David Blunkett: At the moment, I have not got round to the nature of the voting pattern, but I am delighted to say that I will have with me a number of Opposition Members—Front Benchers, as well as Back Benchers—if we have a free vote. I have mentioned two of them this afternoon: the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. I am encouraged that, with all sorts of doubts and concerns, Labour Back Benchers are united today in believing that we need to move to a modern era, to take on the challenge of the future. That is very encouraging indeed.

Derek Wyatt: As the House knows, I have an interest in technology, although I am not a technologist. There are 80 million cellphones in the United Kingdom, with 80 per cent. coverage—much more than passports or driving licences. Can biometrics be used in cellphones? Will my right hon. Friend consider that as a way to add to the identity system?

David Blunkett: I do not want to be totally facetious, but they would have to work a damn sight better than my mobile phone works.

Colin Challen: I welcome my right hon. Friend's incremental approach to this subject. Of course, the brand-new thing being proposed is the introduction of encrypted information on the cards. Will he consider setting up some kind of independent regulator, such as the Data Protection Registrar, who could be approached by members of the public who want to check the contents of their cards, because that has been a very important aspect of controlling data protection until now?

David Blunkett: First, the commissioner has offered to work closely with us in making sure that what we do is compliant. Secondly, I have made it clear that Parliament must lay down what is held on the chip, and that anything held on the chip over and above that would be illegal if we had not authorised it. In years to come, individuals may request that their cards hold their emergency treatment requirements, but that will be a different matter entirely.

Martin Salter: The Home Secretary is well aware of my strong support, and that of my constituents, for his proposals. Can he tell the House what comments he has received so far from the police in relation to the concept of the introduction of ID cards?

David Blunkett: The police service at every level are in favour of them, and they understand the parameters, as I have laid them down this afternoon, within which they would work.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as an old-fashioned socialist who believes in state provision from the cradle to the grave and the planned economy that is necessary for that provision, I believe that it is essential that we have some idea for whom and for how many we are providing? An identity scheme could help us to do just that and to cut out the cost of those who do not qualify.

David Blunkett: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and I agree with the thrust of her question. I shall reserve my position for the future and think about the question of the planned economy.

Points of Order

Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about a letter that I received from an editor of a major newspaper following queries that I had raised about sexual harassment and bullying at News International. The letter was a thinly disguised attempt to warn me off.
	I recently received an unsolicited copy of a letter to News International's lawyers from a firm representing a victim of serious sexual harassment. The allegations had been made against Stuart Higgins, one-time editor of The Sun. I understand that the eventual settlement involved a payment of about half a million pounds, with a condition of silence imposed on the victim. As far as I am aware, no proper disciplinary hearings took place and other senior staff appear to have colluded with what was by any standard extremely offensive and destructive behaviour.
	The police were not called when hate mail was being sent to the victim on News International stationery. I do not know whether either the offence or the settlement was reported to Rupert Murdoch, although I think that that would have been likely. There was no attempt to deal with the underlying problem of sexual harassment and bullying, and my contacts tell me that it was not an isolated case. The solicitors' letter tends to confirm that.
	I must raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, because after I had written to Les Hinton, the chief executive of News International, I received a letter from Rebekah Wade, editor of The Sun. The letter asked me how many complaints of sexual harassment had been made to me, while chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, by my staff—the parliamentary Labour party staff—and by MPs' staff. In fact, I had received none. It is impossible to see the letter as anything other than a threat, as I had not approached any editors—I had approached only the chief executive's office.
	It must be a matter of serious public concern when a major multinational media group uses its editors to threaten a Member of Parliament who is carrying out a legitimate inquiry into that group's employment practices. As I am asking other employees who also suffered abuse to contact me or their lawyers, it is important that editors and management understand that this House will not tolerate explicit or implicit threats against its Members when carrying out their proper duties. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear that Members of Parliament have those duties, and that they should be allowed to pursue them without threats or warnings of any type. I am a strong defender of legitimate investigative journalism, but the press cannot and should not expose others while covering up their own problems.

Mr. Speaker: In order to help the hon. Gentleman, the best thing that I can do is fully to investigate this matter. If he will allow me, I will do so.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did a great job in allowing dozens of Members of Parliament to speak in response to the statement, but a large number—perhaps a dozen—were unfortunately not able to make their points. May I ask you again, as the guardian of Back Benchers' rights, to ensure that Front Benchers do not take more than half the time allocated for the statement? May I please ask you to consider that matter again, as I know that you have done previously?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I do not think that the Front-Bench statements today were unduly long, but there have been occasions when some Ministers and Opposition spokesmen have taken an undue length of time with their statements, and I will bear that in mind.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the announcement by the new shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whom I informed of my intention to make this point of order, that he intends to retain his remunerated directorship with the investment banking arm of N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. Could not such an arrangement be misinterpreted as lobbying for reward or consideration, even when such lobbying was inadvertent and arose out of the normal duties of the shadow Chancellor? What is your advice in relation to such potential conflicts of interest?

Mr. Speaker: My advice to the hon. Gentleman is not to raise such a matter on the Floor of the House. It is not a matter for me.

Group Personal Accident Insurance (Regulation)

Jim Sheridan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit employers from benefiting from the death or illness of employees as a result of group insurance policies taken out without the employee's consent.
	This Bill aims to regulate group personal accident insurance, otherwise known as dead peasants' insurance.May I begin by congratulating the Scottish press on highlighting this sharp practice and, more so, the Scottish Trades Union Congress on its support and advice in preparing the Bill.
	There are many disturbing aspects to group personal accident insurance, and none more so than employers being able to take out life insurance on their employees without the knowledge or consent of that employee or their family. Employers can then cash in the policy when the employee dies and keep the money for corporate coffers.
	Group accident cover includes compensation for death, loss of limbs and so on, and explicitly states that the company may be the sole beneficiary of such a policy. That appears to suggest that a company can be the beneficiary of a policy when an employee has died or lost a limb without them or their family ever having realised that the policy existed. The criteria for compensation would appear to be attached to the loss that the individual will suffer rather than that of the firm. If that is the case, it is entirely inappropriate that the company should be the beneficiary.
	That begs the question: how is compensation for the loss of a limb by an individual reconcilable with compensating the company? I may be old-fashioned, but I find it obscene that employers can profit from the death of their employees. It also has the potential to undermine safety at the workplace. What is equally concerning is the ambiguous position that surrounds any direct or indirect tax exemptions for companies that indulge in this immoral practice. I hope that this Bill, if successful, will flush out those companies that participate in such a scheme, and legislate against the practice.
	To date, it has been extremely difficult to establish detailed facts relating to which companies are exploiting this system due to their reluctance to volunteer any information, although it is estimated by some industry insiders that those types of policies account for 30 per cent. of the life insurance market. Indeed, a study carried out in 2002 for Royal Sun Alliance by Continental Research found that nearly half all mid-sized or smaller UK companies take out such policies or similar ones, such as key-man insurance policies, which are targeted mainly at chief executives.
	The clandestine practice has been imported into the UK from America, where there is anecdotal evidence of corporate profit being made from the untimely deaths of employees. For example, a young man in America died of AIDS, and although his employer received more than £200,000 in death benefits, his family did not receive a single penny—or cent—from the company. The major cases that are being pursued in various states in America against dead peasants' insurance centre on the tax situation regarding the schemes. It is possible, in some states, for the premiums to be tax deductible, even if there is a corporate beneficiary. The situation in the UK is, at best, unclear. There appear to be circumstances in which premiums could be tax deductible, but I am unable at this point to be more specific about something that is fraught with complications.
	The implications of the schemes for health and safety in the workplace are more important. It could be argued that it is unrealistic to propose that the existence of such policies has a direct link to undermining health and safety at work in the UK, although such a link has been made in America. However, companies are allowed to choose whether the policy should be confined to covering accidents at work or accidents that happen anywhere.
	A more direct link can be made with best practice culture. The trade union movement rightly argues that the best care of employees is of benefit to both employees and employers. Any insurance policy that mitigates the damage to the employer of not following best practice should be viewed as highly suspect.
	The Bill would not stop good employers taking out life insurance for their employees, but it would provide that they should ask for the consent of employees and their families beforehand. The policies should not be a vehicle for making profits for a company.
	Like the Government, the whole trade union movement and I want British business to invest in best practices for staff development and consultation, health and safety and effective management structures. Group personal accident insurance will make no positive contribution toward that, but it has the potential to undermine employee confidence.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Jim Sheridan, Mr. John Lyons, Jim Dobbin, Anne Picking, David Hamilton, Mr. Siôn Simon and Mr. John MacDougall.

Group Personal Accident Insurance (Regulation)

Jim Sheridan accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit employers from benefiting from the death or illness of employees as a result of group insurance policies taken out without the employee's consent: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 175].

Orders of the Day

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords]

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Denis MacShane: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am pleased that we have reached Third Reading of this important Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their support in getting it to this stage.
	Colleagues who have followed proceedings on the Bill will recall that it is essentially a technical measure, but it might be useful to remind them of the background to the adapted conventional armed forces in Europe treaty—CFE treaty. The original CFE treaty was signed between NATO and former Warsaw pact countries in 1990. Its aim was to reduce holdings of military equipment and to establish a secure and stable balance of forces in Europe to eliminate the capability of a surprise attack or the initiation of large-scale offensive action. It limits holdings—on a bloc-to-bloc basis—of five categories of heavy weapons: battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. An intrusive inspection regime was established as part of the treaty so that states parties could verify each other's holdings of those weapons to ensure that they were kept within treaty limits. The Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 1991 implemented certain provisions of the treaty and enabled us to ratify it.
	The adapted CFE treaty was signed in 1999. It limits the same five categories of heavy weapons but replaces the bloc-to-bloc limits with national and territorial ceilings. The adapted treaty also encourages greater transparency by providing for enhanced international inspections. It allows new states that are not party to the original CFE treaty to join, but only after all 30 signatories have ratified the adapted treaty. The UK has not yet ratified the adapted treaty, but we are keen to do so once Russia meets the commitments that it made to Georgia and Moldova at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Istanbul when the treaty was signed. This short, technical Bill therefore makes necessary changes to the existing legislation so that we will be ready to ratify once the conditions are right.
	On Second Reading and in Committee, hon. Members expressed reservations about the fact that the Bill contains powers that provide for future amendments to the CFE treaty relating to inspections that require implementation in the UK to be given effect by way of Order in Council. I once again assure hon. Members that the purpose of that provision is to allow small, technical changes to the 1991 Act to be taken forward without the need to use up valuable parliamentary time. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in the other place has confirmed that it considers that level of delegation and control to be appropriate.
	The report on the Bill by the Select Committee on Defence recommends that the Ponsonby rule should be applied when we decide to proceed with ratification of the adapted CFE treaty. As the Government confirmed in their response to the report, the Ponsonby rule will indeed be applied. When the Secretary of State decides that the time is right to ratify the adapted CFE treaty, and thus that we are in a position to make the commencement order to bring the Act into force, we will notify the House of our intention.
	Ratification of the adapted CFE treaty will be an important step towards creating the right security environment in Europe. It will be a clear sign of our willingness to work with the other states parties to the treaty to ensure a safe and prosperous future in Europe. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their support in getting the Bill this far.

Richard Spring: I have no intention of unnecessarily detaining the House by rehearsing points about the Bill that have already been made. I thank the Minister for setting out the background to the Bill. The Opposition have tabled no amendments and the clarifications that we sought on Second Reading and in Committee have broadly been given.
	In the light of that, we have no objections to raise on Third Reading. As we have done throughout the Bill's passage, we merely state our support for its contents and recognise the important role that the 1990 treaty has played in bringing greater stability to Europe. We hope that the 1999 agreement, which the Bill will implement in UK law, will continue to add to that peace and stability.
	I thank the Minister for his helpful responses to our queries. In the spirit of the bipartisan co-operation that has marked the Bill's consideration, which is to be applauded, we look forward to its final passage into law.

Michael Moore: Sadly, the Bill's significance is not matched by the attendance in the Chamber this afternoon. Nevertheless, as we discussed on Second Reading and briefly in Committee, it offers an important extension of arms control and inspections. In an era of rogue states and international terrorism, we should not lose sight of the threat of world war, which the end of the cold war has reduced significantly. Like the Minister and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), we urge Russia to resolve its difficulties with Georgia and Moldova, and hope that the treaty can be ratified as soon as possible. Like the Conservatives, we continue to support the Bill.

Peter Bottomley: On behalf of Back Benchers from all parties, may I congratulate the Minister and Opposition spokesman on what they have said about the Bill today?

Angus Robertson: It would be wrong to miss the opportunity to have a full house so, on behalf of the main Opposition parties in Scotland and Wales, may I give the measure our wholehearted support? Having recently returned from Georgia, I am aware that there are unresolved issues in the Caucasus relating to this important measure. I sincerely hope that the federal Government of Russia will look closely at their commitments in Georgia. In general, however, the Bill is important and commands the respect of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

EUROPEAN UNION (ACCESSIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Accessions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st May 2003:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

European Union (Accessions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Freedom of Movement for Workers

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 17 and insert—
	(5A) Regulations may not be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5B) But, in the case of regulations other than the first set of regulations under this section, subsection (5A) does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency they should be made without being approved in draft.
	(5C) Where by virtue of subsection (5B) regulations are made without being approved in draft, the regulations —
	(a) must be laid before Parliament, and
	(b) cease to have effect at the end of the period mentioned in subsection (5D) unless they are approved during that period by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5D) The period referred to in subsection (5C)(b) is the period of 40 days —
	(a) beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, and
	(b) ignoring any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
	(5E) The fact that regulations cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (5C)—
	(a) does not affect the lawfulness of anything done before the regulations cease to have effect, and
	(b) does not prevent the making of new regulations.

Denis MacShane: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The Bill was thoroughly debated on Second Reading, in Committee and in the Lords. The Government have been willing to accept amendments, and this afternoon we shall consider the Lords amendment, which is designed to subject the regulations to affirmative resolution, so that issues about controlling the movement of people from the enlarged European Union with the 10 new accession countries can be brought to the House rapidly for debate and decision. I do not want to rehearse arguments that have already been made at the Dispatch Box, in Committee and in another place, and invite the House to support the Lords amendment.

Richard Spring: We welcome the Lords amendment as a proper response to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and others. In Committee, we, too, expressed concern about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that could be made under clause 2, and I am satisfied that the amendment will resolve that problem. However, I hope that the Minister can help me with one remaining concern.
	New subsection (5B) will allow an exemption from new subsection (5A) for reasons of urgency. Can the Minister explain exactly what is meant by that? New subsection (5B) will give the Government some discretionary power to act without parliamentary approval, so they must be explicit about what they intend to do with it. What kind of situation could be described as urgent, and what time scale of events constitutes a reason of urgency?
	The accession of the 10 countries is an important and historic process, and was unanimously agreed in the House of Commons. It is not only an economic and political imperative but a moral one. I very much look forward to a union of 25 countries coming together in what I hope will be a more flexible and diverse European Union. The amendment is an important addition to an important Bill.

Michael Moore: I echo what the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said. We are debating two significant Bills this afternoon, although the Minister may characterise them as simple, straightforward and technical measures. For the record, will he explain what special circumstances may give rise to an order being in place for 40 days before ceasing to have effect? That seems to be a short period, but it applies only to parliamentary sitting days. If the House is in recess, the period in which those temporary measures apply will be quite considerable. It would help the House if he clarified how the provision will be used, as well as the nature of the temporary measures.
	Apart from that, I join the hon. Member for West Suffolk in endorsing the Bill and the amendment.

Angus Robertson: It must be a unique development in the House of Commons for the Labour and Conservative spokesmen, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru to be in absolute agreement on a measure twice within half an hour. I, too, would like to put on record our wholehearted support for the Bill and its progress. The reuniting of our continent is a truly historic event. Enlargement will result in the European Union being made up overwhelmingly of small and medium-sized countries, and in future a draft European constitution will not preclude internal enlargement. We hope that in time both Scotland and Wales will take their rightful place at the top table in the European Union. One step at a time, however—that is not for discussion today. Like other spokespeople, I should like to underline our support for the Bill and its progress.

Peter Bottomley: This is probably the first time for nearly 60 years when it has been possible to debate Europe when there has not been a period of major conflict, at least in western Europe. One reason for that is, I half jokingly believe, the neo-colonialist nature of the European Union. Countries in the east and south of Europe are doing their best to match the standards that the EU and the Council of Europe require of their members. That potential spread of peace, harmony and prosperity is important.
	Associated with that is the fact that one has to be about 65 to have experienced national service. It is to be hoped that our experience of living in a country with a volunteer army, which does not need to be used in north-western Europe, can soon be repeated throughout the rest of Europe. One of the greatest scars on Europe was created by the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Similar problems are occurring on the fringes of Russia, and sometimes within that country as well. Political arguments about the details of EU treaties or methods of enlargement should not disguise the fact that, if a political system meets the objective of avoiding unnecessary international war and unnecessary persistent and widespread civil war, we are doing our duty in the service of politics.

Denis MacShane: I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who made some important points. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting the Defence Minister of Serbia and Montenegro, which wants to modernise its army and place it under civilian and democratic control. Britain is seeking to help it, so we can finally close the chapter of the Milosevic era. The Defence Minister made the important point that the European Union is more than simply a trade zone, as it has ideals and values. It has had an extraordinary impact on the democratisation of the enlargement states, as well as increasing the rate of reform and modernisation there. We hope that it will do the same in the accession states.
	Chancellor Kohl was mocked a decade or more ago when he said that the European Union was about war and peace, but I believe that he was right. As all party representatives have made the point that we are as one on enlargement, I hope that we will move swiftly to a successful constitutional treaty, which is necessary to make enlargement work well, and bring it to the House for similar cross-party ratification in the new spirit of European unity that has emerged since the recent reshuffle. I think that I had better stop while I am ahead.
	I was asked important questions about the amendment's reference to urgency in bringing regulations before the House. The answer is that the Government's attitude to the issue is precautionary. Research suggests that it is unlikely that there will be a large-scale influx of workers into the UK after enlargement. However, the Government will monitor carefully the policy's impact on the UK labour market. The Department for Work and Pensions will handle that monitoring using existing sources of data and information, and it will use informal mechanisms to consult stakeholders inside and outside the Government. If, contrary to expectations, serious disturbances arose in the labour market, we would expect the monitoring to show them up. In such circumstances, action might need to be taken swiftly. I shall not cite specific examples, as I do not want any hypothetical examples to be taken to constitute a definitive list. The Government would prefer to maintain the necessary element of flexibility to meet whatever exigencies might arise.
	That is why we have put the urgency procedure mechanisms and language into the Bill. We think that public and parliamentary interest is likely to be most acute when the first regulations are made, as they will fully liberalise access to our labour markets by citizens of the eight states affected by the treaty's transitional measures. For that reason, the Government have sought to put beyond doubt their intention to gain parliamentary approval for the first set of regulations before they come into force. That is why the amendment generally requires regulations to be laid in draft before parliamentary approval and subsequent commencement. Of course, it also allows the Secretary of State to bring regulations into force prior to resolutions of both Houses "by reason of urgency". In cases where that urgency procedure is used, the Secretary of State will need to secure resolutions within 40 days. Without such resolutions, the regulations would lapse at that point. I believe that that gives a parliamentary lock on the matter.
	We are grateful for the Lords amendment. I hope that, with the approval of the House, the Bill can now pass into law.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

United Nations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Bill Rammell: I am pleased to open this important debate on reform of the United Nations. The United Nations is frequently mentioned in this House when we debate foreign policy issues, but it has rarely had the detailed attention that it deserves. That is why we decided in September to publish a Command Paper setting out the immense breadth of the UK's role in the UN, why we followed up its publication with a debate in Westminster Hall and why we have initiated this debate.

Angus Robertson: I cannot disagree with a word that the Under-Secretary has said so far, but does it not concern him slightly that, in a debate that he has billed as so important, only three Back Benchers are present?

Bill Rammell: That is a good debating point, but if anybody should be subject to criticism on that score, it is all of us. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that on a one-line Whip, as now, attendances are not always as high as they might be. Nevertheless, this is a significant and important debate. When the same subject was discussed in Westminster Hall, a number of contributions were made, although I do not recall whether he was present.
	In the debate that took place at the General Assembly in New York in September, many contributions focused on the important need for reform of the United Nations. The Government believe that that is a vital issue that deserves broad public and parliamentary attention. Indeed, that is why we have gone out of our way as a Government to ensure that we give opportunities—I think that they are unprecedented—to debate these issues, as we did in Westminster Hall and are doing today.
	On a day on which we commemorate those who sacrificed their lives in two world wars, we need little reminder of why the United Nations was needed in 1945. Today, when two fifths of the world's population live on less than a dollar a day and there is a conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that has probably already cost at least 3 million lives, to take just one current example, it should be equally obvious to all of us how much the United Nations is needed.
	The drafters of the UN charter were sufficiently visionary to ensure that its aims in respect of a collective approach to security underpinned by respect for human rights and economic and social development sound just as important, relevant and fresh today as they did when the charter was established. In an increasingly interdependent world, we need collective approaches as never before. We certainly pursue such approaches through the EU, NATO, the World Trade Organisation and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but the only comprehensive global organisation is the UN, and I believe that it has a unique and significant role to play. That is why, ever since a Labour Government invited the General Assembly to hold its inaugural session in London in 1946, we have placed the UN at the heart of Britain's foreign policy.
	Support for the UN does not, however, mean unconditional backing for current structures, activities or methods of working. I genuinely believe that real friends of the UN should be the ones who ask the toughest and most challenging questions of it. I have often found that those who profess the strongest political support for the UN have only the scantiest knowledge of its workings and shortcomings. I do not think that we do the UN any service by hiding away from that fact.
	That is why the Government have been a strong supporter of the Secretary-General's reform programme, which has sought to focus work in the secretariat on the highest priority areas, in line with the goals identified by world leaders at the millennium summit. The millennium development goals that emerged as a result of that summit can be seen as evidence of the progress that the Secretary-General's reform programme has already instituted at the United Nations. Today, the 191 UN member states agree that the organisation must focus its work on the key priorities that were agreed at the millennium summit, and not on others. The objectives focus on concrete and measurable outcomes, rather than process. I believe that that is what Governments and peoples around the world want the United Nations to concentrate on.

Gary Streeter: I agree with where the Under-Secretary is taking the debate. Has he seen any evidence in the past two or three years that the UN is achieving a new focus on its stated priorities?

Bill Rammell: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and congratulate him on his appointment? I was just about to give an example in which fundamental change is taking place. I believe that the reprioritisation required by the process that I have described gives rise to some tough decisions for all of us.
	Let me take an example close to home. Many hon. Members will have had contact with the United Nations information centre in London over the years, and will rightly have valued the service that it offers. Nevertheless, the Secretary-General has rightly said that, in the age of the internet, information on the UN in western Europe can be more efficiently delivered through a single hub in Brussels. As a result of that change, resources can be focused on higher-priority activity elsewhere, including developing the information capacity of the developing world. Painful though it was to lose our information centre, we believe that that was the right decision. It is in such changes that we all need to hold our nerve and support the overall process of change that is taking place.
	We need further progress in the direction of reform and we are encouraging others to accept that other low priority activities and programmes should be ended. We want to ensure that new activities have built-in reviews and end dates, so that programmes must prove their value, rather than simply drifting on indefinitely. That is a critical point. Anyone who has visited the UN and looked in detail at how the system works—as several hon. Members have done—will recognise that committing the UN to a programme that carries on regardless of changed circumstances and priorities is not acceptable.

Angus Robertson: The Minister mentions institutional reform. He will be more aware than most that many countries in the UN would like reform to the way in which the Security Council works, which would enable other countries such as Germany and Japan to take on a more permanent role. What is the Government's policy on that question and on the suggestion for a permanent representative on behalf of the European Union, who might be able to speak in the Security Council on behalf of all 25 members of the Union?

Bill Rammell: I shall address that issue later in my speech, but we support an enlarged permanent membership of the Security Council, especially regarding Germany and Japan. We do not advocate membership for the European Union; the current structure of the Security Council provides membership for sovereign states, not for bodies such as the European Union.
	The General Assembly has an important role to play in the process of prioritisation, but if it is to be effective, it must get its own house in order. In his recent millennium declaration progress report, the Secretary-General described the Assembly's "repetitive and sterile debates", and its
	"agenda crowded with items that either overlap or are of interest to only a few states".
	He rightly called for improvements.
	One important innovation might be to move away from set-piece interventions. It is right that the general debate that opens each year's Assembly should consist of prepared speeches. It is the opportunity for world leaders to set out their vision of the UN's developing role and to influence the political agenda for the year ahead. It gives us all a chance to take the temperature of world opinion—and that is an important opportunity. However, the remaining months of the General Assembly should not consist simply of ambassadors talking past each other in formal sessions, as too often happens at the moment. We should look for opportunities to have debates on matters of real and topical importance, where the views of different countries are listened to and receive a legitimate response.
	The agenda needs also to give due priority to the most important subjects. It is open to question whether resolutions to establish an international year of rice or an international year of mountains have really added significantly to the greater good of the international community. It cannot be right that the General Assembly should be the forum for pursuing individual hobby-horses.
	Part of the problem is the way that the General Assembly operates for the most part as a series of large blocs. Sometimes those are electoral groups and sometimes they are groups that reflect a genuine commonality of interest, as with the EU or the Arab group. Some organisation on such lines is clearly essential if we are to avoid 191 member states expressing a separate view on every issue. However, too often, the Assembly operates as an extended negotiation between two monolithic groupings—the developed world and the non-aligned movement. That division hides the real diversity of views within their memberships as negotiating positions are brought down to a lowest common denominator, and we should try to avoid that situation. Ministers and our missions in New York and Geneva are active in reaching out across those divides and encouraging constructive engagement from individual countries. We take care to include UN issues in bilateral discussions at ministerial and official level with key partners in the developing world, and we have institutionalised regular dialogue with some key partners, such as India. We will look for further opportunities to break down the barriers and will be encouraging our partners to do more in that area.
	We are not alone in seeking General Assembly reform. Following his election in September, the General Assembly's President, Foreign Minister Julian Hunte of St. Lucia, has been quick to raise the banner of reform. He has launched his own initiative to streamline and revitalise the General Assembly, building on many of the ideas that we have been promoting, as set out in our Command Paper. Other UN members are also pursuing separate reform initiatives complementary to those going on within the General Assembly framework. I was particularly pleased recently, when visiting Mexico, to discuss the establishment of a friends of reform group, led by the Mexican Government, whose membership will be drawn from across the UN. Already, countries such as Canada, Sweden, South Africa, Japan, Argentina and Algeria have joined in the discussions. Although the intention is that the permanent five members should not become members of that group, there is much in common with our own agenda and I intend to follow the Mexican initiative closely and feed in to the process.
	We also want to encourage reform of the subsidiary bodies of the General Assembly. The most important of those is the Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC. This body has the primary responsibility for overseeing the work of the UN's various funds, programmes and agencies. It can, therefore, potentially ensure that the UN's contribution in many parts of the world is coherent and co-ordinated, and that there is no duplication of UN effort. A UN working group that sat from January to June this year decided that ECOSOC should produce a multi-year work programme. That will begin to improve the situation significantly, and we will work hard within that promising climate to make some meaningful improvements to how those bodies operate and function.
	The UN, under Kofi Annan's stewardship, has also recognised that a successful organisation needs an effective administration to deliver its priorities. The Secretary-General has drawn on his experience at the heart of the administration to shape the reform agenda that he initially launched back in 1997. Much has been done, but there is still room for improvement. As a friend and strong supporter of the UN, that is an argument that we should make.
	In September 2002 the Secretary-General launched the latest round of his programme of reforms with a report entitled "Strengthening the UN: An Agenda for Further Change", which was fully supported by the UK Government. The latest reform agenda includes many important items such as priority setting, management of human resources, financial management, working practices and ensuring appropriate staffing levels. All of that is crucial to providing an efficient administration that can deliver priority activities and go on to achieve the objectives set for the UN by the international community. We will certainly not resile from continuing to play a leading role in pushing for reform of UN bureaucracy.
	I should also mention that this year's session of the General Assembly will agree the UN's budget for the next two years. As a large contributor to the UN, we want to ensure that the budget is focused on UN priority activity, to ensure that the organisation is as efficient and effective as possible. Linking spending to priority activity is an essential part of the overall reform process. However—and this point is sometimes lost in our debates on the issue—it is important to stress that our aim is not to cut budgets, but instead to ensure that the organisation delivers better value for money and spends its resources on the issues that are of concern to us and to the whole international community.

Hugh Robertson: The Minister mentioned the budget, and he will be aware that a high proportion of it comes from the United States, Japan and the European Union. Does he consider that that proportion is too great and does he think that a larger amount should come from other countries that currently contribute very little?

Bill Rammell: This is a difficult process and is part of the ongoing debate. Some nations—Japan is one of them—have significant concerns about the level of their contributions. That is why it is crucial that we scrutinise in detail proposals for further UN expenditure. Over time, we may see increased contributions from countries that currently do not contribute so much. But all that should be focused on ensuring that we are spending the money on the right priorities, not simply the spending for spending's sake that advocates of the United Nations sometimes appear to promote.
	Much UN reform is a gradual process in which we have been engaged for many years. The UN is a body that has, rightly, continually evolved as it has been faced with new challenges. It can come as a surprise, for example, to realise that the UN charter makes no explicit mention of peacekeeping, even though blue-helmeted forces are now one of the UN's most familiar manifestations. From the first simple observer mission in Palestine in 1948, UN peacekeeping has grown into a complex set of tasks in which political, humanitarian, policing and military elements are closely woven together. The UN is now running throughout the world some 13 simultaneous peacekeeping operations involving some 42,000 military and civilian personnel, who are soon to be increased by the 15,000-strong mission in Liberia—a mission that we have strongly supported. The UK has been at the forefront of the Secretariat's efforts to implement the Brahimi report of August 2000 on peace operations. We are encouraging the reforms that are under way through a programme of assistance under the UN strategy of a global conflict prevention pool, and we will continue to work in the Security Council to ensure that peacekeeping operations have robust, but realistic, mandates.
	Peacekeeping is a good example of gradual evolution having worked well for the United Nations—although there is undoubtedly still more to do—but there is also a case for a more strategic review. That is why we welcome the Secretary-General's announcement of a high level panel to examine the way in which the UN handles threats to international peace and security. Kofi Annan has chosen people of high calibre with a wide variety of experience in dealing with the UN, including our own David Hannay. We welcome their appointment. The panel offers a real opportunity to break the deadlock on reform. The Secretary-General's backing for the reform agenda is fundamental and key, but it is encouraging that support goes much wider than that: I have been convinced through my contacts with a wide range of countries that there is, at long last, a critical mass of interest that will genuinely move the reform agenda forward.
	The Secretary-General's panel was launched against the background of differences in the past year about how best to deal with the threat posed by Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations under 10 years of Security Council resolutions. Some may see the primary issue for the panel as being how the international system can better constrain unilateralism. However, the wish to pursue multilateral solutions should not become a means of enforcing inaction—rather, the panel should consider how we can ensure that we have the means and the political will to tackle collectively the threats that face us.
	Subsequent disputes over military action have obscured the fact that the Security Council was united in holding Iraq to be in breach of its obligations under previous Security Council resolutions. The problem was not that the Security Council disagreed over the nature of the threat, but that when it came to the point, its members could not agree to follow through on the serious consequences that had been so clearly threatened in resolution 1441. In that regard, I welcome the comments that the Secretary-General made in his contribution to the UN General Assembly. He said that
	"it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We"—
	the international community—
	"must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action."
	That is an important point that goes to the heart of some of our debates in recent months on the role and position of the United Nations within the international community.
	When such serious issues are at stake, it is perhaps not surprising that there are disagreements. The views on all sides of the Security Council, particularly on Iraq, were sincerely and strongly held. That is not a sign that the institution of the United Nations has failed. However, such circumstances give us an opportunity to look afresh at how the Security Council works and at how it can—as I believe that it should—maintain its pre-eminent position in the maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council holds a privileged place among the UN's institutions, in that it alone can create binding legal obligations on the whole membership. Those responsibilities must be backed up by the trust of the wider UN membership.
	The Government have long argued that the Security Council's effectiveness would be enhanced by broadening its membership so that it better reflects the modern world. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) alluded to that. It is idiosyncratic, to say the least, that the permanent membership of the Security Council largely reflects the outcome of the second world war—an event that took place more than 50 years ago. In particular, we would like representatives of the developing world to gain permanent membership. We have therefore argued that the Council's membership should be increased from 15 to 24, including five additional permanent members. We support Japan and Germany's candidacies in recognition of their political and economic weight and their broad contribution to the United Nations. In our view, the other three seats should be filled by countries from the developing world—one each from the African, Asian and Latin American regions. We have made it clear that we see India and Brazil as the pre-eminent candidates for the latter two regions, but it is of course primarily for aspirants to make their own cases within their own regional groups.

Hugh Robertson: I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that increasing the numbers to give greater representation is desirable, but is not the key factor what happens to the veto? If the use of the veto were to be extended across the Security Council, that could produce not better action, but more inaction.

Bill Rammell: That is an important point. However, an increase in permanent membership does not have to go hand in hand with an increased possession of the veto, which we do not advocate, and which could lead to a permanent gridlock in decision making.

Angus Robertson: Will the Minister clarify that? Is he advocating a two-tier system of permanent members of the Security Council? Alternatively, if membership were to be extended, would it not make sense to take the veto away from the five member states that currently have it, so that there is equality across the Security Council?

Bill Rammell: That is a good debating point. If we reflect, however, on the circumstances in which the United Nations was originally established, one of the reasons for the creation of the veto was to prevent certain pre-eminent nations and global powers from simply walking away, as in the case of the League of Nations. We have to deal with the realities and practicalities of the situation. We certainly do not advocate the removal of vetoes. If we are to move forward with an enhancement and expansion of the permanent membership, a significant increase in the possession of vetoes would not help the process of reform.

Michael Moore: The Minister gives an important enough response to the question put by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), but he avoids its starting point, which is the idea of a two-tier permanent membership of the Security Council. How exactly would he sell that to the Germans, the Japanese or anybody else?

Bill Rammell: I think that I have answered the question. I want an expansion of the permanent membership, but we have a long way to go in achieving that. We therefore need to work with all our international partners to create the consensus that will enable us to take the situation forward.
	Institutional reform of the Security Council can help to build wider support for its actions, but changes in its membership alone cannot provide an answer to the security challenges that face us. We should ask ourselves what the charter's call to uphold international peace and security means in the modern world. It must mean facing up to threats from international terrorism. We have made a good start by setting up the Counter-Terrorism Committee—a unique mechanism of peer review to spread good practice in the fight against terrorism—but we must maintain the political momentum behind it by ensuring that it focuses attention on the most serious shortcomings and tackles those countries with least commitment to the fight against terrorism.
	That must also mean considering the threat from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is striking, noteworthy and worrying that the Security Council has not discussed this as a generic issue for something like a decade. We therefore welcome the impetus given to the subject by President Bush in his speech to the General Assembly in September. We are currently in consultation with partners to decide how the Council can best fill this gap in its agenda. I believe that it is important for us to do that.
	In revisiting the definition of international peace and security, we should also bear in mind how notions of state sovereignty have evolved since the founding of the United Nations. We have all rightly become used to the idea that one country's internal decisions on, for example, environmental or economic matters can become a cause for global concern. We also recognise—even if some of our closest partners, regrettably, sometimes do not—that these problems should be the subject of collective responses. Similarly, the governance, internal security and stability of an individual country are legitimate subjects for international concern and, where appropriate, collective action. Internal conflict quickly draws in neighbours, and repression by Governments leads to outflows of refugees. A breakdown in the rule of law can lead to the export of organised crime. All those factors can destabilise entire regions. The international community should not use the excuse that they are internal matters as a reason for waiting until they develop into full-scale regional emergencies. We need better systems of conflict prevention, drawing in the whole UN system.
	We should also look again at the criteria that we use to decide when the international community should intervene. There is no guarantee that the Security Council would be any more willing to intervene today if it was again faced with a situation like the Rwandan genocide or the Serb actions in Kosovo. No one should be in any doubt that, in some circumstances, it is right, acceptable and just for the international community to intervene in another sovereign state. What happened in Rwanda in 1994 provides the most powerful argument in support of that. It was a damning indictment of the international community of the time that action was not taken.
	Starting with the speech made by the Prime Minister in Chicago in 1999, the Government have put forward to the Security Council some possible criteria for intervention, and it is time to look at that issue again. We suggested then that we needed to build a better understanding of the circumstances and conditions in which the international community could act when conflict prevention failed. Intervention can take a number of forms, and the use of force should always be a last resort. We believe that the development of a set of pragmatic understandings on action in response to humanitarian crises would help the Security Council—acting on behalf of the members of the UN as referred to in the charter—to reach consensus when such crises occur, thus ensuring effective and timely action by the international community. Action should be taken only to prevent genocide or major loss of civilian life that could destabilise other states and threaten international peace and security. In those circumstances, force should be used only as a last resort and when a Government have demonstrated their unwillingness or inability to end large-scale civilian suffering within their jurisdiction.
	There also has to be a pragmatic element. The scale of actual or potential human suffering must justify the risks and dangers of military action, and there must be clear and relevant objectives and the military means to ensure a high probability of success. The use of force in such circumstances should be collective and limited in scope to actions necessary and proportionate to achieving the humanitarian objective. It must also respect humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions. That, however, is only one possible way of expressing the conditions under which intervention should take place. I believe that it is timely and important that we are having a debate on this issue.

Alan Howarth: The criteria that my hon. Friend has just sketched out reflect what has happened in the history of Iraq over the past 10 years. Do we not need reforms that would ensure that United Nations resolutions were not flouted, and that there would be no more failures to enforce them over such long periods and with such calamitous consequences?

Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly important point. One reason that we ended up in that situation over Iraq was that, over an extraordinarily long period, Iraq had flouted the will of the international community through the United Nations, and the international community—through the UN—had effectively sat back and allowed that situation to develop. I referred earlier to discussions with the Mexican Government about their ideas for reform, and one of the issues that they are considering—and which we should all consider—is how we can ensure that the international community enforces the relevant Security Council resolutions.
	We also need to consider how the UN can better deal with post-conflict situations. Some two thirds of all conflicts reignite within five years and the international community needs to do more to break that cycle of violence. There is much expertise within the UN system and in national Governments, accumulated from a wide range of post-conflict situations. That needs to be drawn together in a more readily accessible form.
	During our recent presidency of the Security Council, in September, we started work on one aspect of that, namely, the transition to justice and the rule of law. As part of that process, the UN Secretary-General has agreed to produce a report setting out the UN's experience in this area and making recommendations for future action, to help to ensure that the components of a justice system in a post-conflict society—police, prisons and an equitable legal system—are put in place. Justice and the rule of law are essential building blocks for stability and prosperity, without which a secure political and economic framework cannot be constructed. The UN has progressively become more involved in this area, but so far in a rather piecemeal fashion. We envisage that it will use the current exercise to develop a more coherent and targeted strategy for future action. It could also provide a more systematic way of co-ordinating individual contributions in this area by the international community.
	It is right that the UK should seek to influence the debate on UN reform. Our own interests are global, and many of them are better advanced in partnership with others. An effective UN is the right body to achieve much of that. We are also well placed to exert that influence: first, as a permanent member of the Security Council; secondly, from next January, as the fourth largest contributor to the UN's regular budget; thirdly, as the provider of more than £600 million worth of support to the UN in 2002, nearly two thirds in the form of voluntary contributions; and fourthly, as a provider of key personnel across the UN's operations. The full breadth of our UN contribution is astonishing, as can be seen from the Command Paper produced by the Government, and we intend to participate fully in the debate on UN reform. The programme of reform is one to which Members from across the House can subscribe and I commend this agenda to the House.

Gary Streeter: This is an important time in the life of the United Nations. That significant organisation must face many tough choices if it is to adapt to the new geopolitical realities of the modern world, so I welcome this timely debate. I am delighted that my first speech in my new role in our foreign affairs team should be on such a crucial issue, and I thank the Minister for his kind welcome to me, earlier in the proceedings.
	May I take this opportunity to place on record my own and my party's appreciation and respect for the dangerous but vital work being undertaken by UN personnel in Iraq, and indeed across the world? May I also record our appreciation of all those who have suffered injury or given their lives while working in Iraq with the UN to build a better future for the Iraqi people?
	Much that I say here today will have a familiar ring to it, because my party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) have made considerable efforts to develop and state our policy in respect of reforming the United Nations over many months. None the less, much of it deserves restating in the context of this debate. That is not simply a way of saying that I have only just taken over and have not had the chance to create my own thoughts on the matter; much of our stated policy needs to be repeated and underlined today, and I know that the subject is held to be particularly important by many of our electorate, who care passionately about these global issues.
	I consider myself always to have been a strong supporter of the United Nations, and I agree with the Minister that the organisation's strongest supporters should also be its strongest advocates for change. In a speech in Oxford, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes addressed the need for dialogue to be at the centre of international relations today. He stated:
	"Dialogue is not only the first step but also the continuing staircase to the understanding and tolerance we must build."
	He went on to say that it was his firm view
	"that an understanding of the past provides the background that is necessary to inform dialogue. It discloses the sources of the fears that in turn have given rise to bitterness and hatred. It rapidly becomes the basic building block of discourse. Knowing how and why the knots of hatred and mistrust came to be tied is the only route to loosen, to unravel, and eventually to undo them."
	That goes to the heart of why the UN remains so important. Among many other things, it is surely a forum for dialogue.
	In an increasingly interconnected and globalising world, dialogue as a means of preventing the spilling over of disputes into conflict is more important than ever. Dialogue builds the understanding that dispels the fear that can give rise to conflict, and the UN is undoubtedly the foremost forum for the promotion of dialogue, understanding and tolerance as well as the peaceful resolution of disputes.
	As a small aside, I recently returned from North Korea. If ever there was an example of a country becoming isolated, North Korea is it: 23 million people live in a closed society and, unfortunately, it has or is on the brink of having nuclear capability, so dialogue, contact and engagement are critical in ensuring that things do not go wrong. We can bring that unique country into the family of nations, and I am sure that the UK and the UN have an important role to play in that.
	Recent events surrounding the conflict in Iraq have served to underline weaknesses in the UN that have been in play for some time. The Foreign Secretary—in this very Chamber, on this very day—admitted that today's machinery has been shown to be inadequate to cope with such a fast-changing world. The lead-up to conflict with Iraq and its aftermath led to gridlock in the Security Council after France, back in February, made it explicitly clear that it would veto any second resolution, thereby preventing any progress from being made.
	The UN, the European Union and NATO all suffered damage in the Iraq crisis as their multilateral machinery showed itself to be unable to cope with the stresses and strains of national interest and disparate viewpoints. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall spectacularly. The question, posed back in September, remains valid today: have recent events truly undermined the effectiveness of the Security Council or only its reputation in Washington? How can we repair the damage? Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together again?
	First, we must understand how we have come to a position where the UN appears to be out of touch with some realities of the geopolitical landscape. As the Minister said, the UN was in many ways a product of the post-second world war climate. It developed during the cold war in the context of two superpowers and their attendant blocs balancing one another in an uneasy equilibrium in which neither had a free hand to act internationally due to the nuclear balance. Balance and compromise were, in many ways, the watchwords.
	With the fall of the Berlin wall and subsequent events, that international power structure was swept away, but many international institutions and much international thinking failed to recognise that and to adapt quickly enough. Just as there is often a tendency to fight the last war, both in reality and perhaps in general elections, so there can be a desire to stick with institutions that were designed to keep the last peace.
	After the collapse of the USSR, the reality was that only one power remained—a hyperpower, to use the current term. That hyperpower—the United States of America—possesses military, economic and technological power that gives it a dominance unknown in history. I recall one fact to which the Prime Minister himself referred in this Chamber some months ago, and it must be true because he said it: the military might of the United States of America is equivalent to that of the next 27 strongest countries put together. If that is absolutely true, what a terrifying and sobering thought it is—unparalleled dominance indeed.
	No longer does the balance that dominated the UN's coming of age exist. The United States can, if it wishes, do anything it desires. It has the means to do so and, as its recent national security strategy shows, it has the will to do so if it perceives a threat to its national interests. That reality has driven US policy in areas such as Iraq where it perceives a threat to exist.
	America was often accused of unilateralism in its actions before the recent conflict in Iraq. It was accused of using its power, irrespective of the UN, to carry out its policy objectives whether the world liked it or not. The Administration felt that the UN's view was already clear, as expressed through many resolutions, the latest being resolution 1441. The US believed that the UN had a duty to enforce its resolutions or be seen as powerless, and thus redundant. The French Government, however, viewed matters differently. They felt that the UN would make itself redundant if it simply agreed with the US, rather than retaining its right to say yea or nay.
	To many in Europe, and indeed around the world, America seemed to be saying that it hoped the world backed it, but, if not, that did not matter, because America would go ahead anyway. Multilateralism and consensus appeared to be holed below the waterline in this new world of conviction diplomacy. In reality, of course, matters were more complex. Recent events in Iraq have shown that the world is not unilateral and, as Joseph Nye recently argued, America cannot "go it alone". Acceptance is vital for power to be effective.
	It is time for a reality check. The UN must recognise the dominant position of the US. In turn, the US must be encouraged to act through the UN. The UK has a unique and historic role to play as a friend of America and a believer in the UN to help to square that circle. I urge the Government to continue their efforts to make that work.
	President Bush is well aware of the need for international co-operation in international affairs. He knows that America cannot really go it alone, hence his going to the UN to secure resolution 1441 and his attempts to secure a second resolution. He has further shown that he recognises the UN's value by channelling much of the reconstruction work in Iraq through the UN by way of the recent resolution, and we remain hopeful that all members of the international community will strive to work together to put that country back together again.
	The UN has never been free from the constraints imposed by great power politics and there was never a golden age when pure multilateralism and consensus politics functioned irrespective of national interest. Throughout the cold war, America and the USSR exercised the veto in defence of their allies or their political stance, one versus the other. So let us, appreciating that backdrop, briefly examine how the UN might be made more effective, bearing in mind the stark reality of current geopolitics.
	The UN charter—the document from which all else in the UN flows—aspires to save people from war, practise tolerance, promote human rights, justice and respect for international obligations, and
	"promote social progress and better standards of life".
	Those objectives remain as valid as they were 50 years ago. They also show that there is far more to what the UN does than simply the top-level political and diplomatic work that most people see acted out in the Security Council. A host of other aspects of its work deserve recognition and perhaps greater prominence in thinking through the UN's future role.
	The debate on the future and reform of the UN is highly important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said in a lecture earlier this year, which I encourage hon. Members to read if they have not already done so. He argued for the need to expand the Security Council, as well as exploring areas such as the growing debate on peacekeeping versus peacemaking.
	I very much welcome the Minister's speech and the one that he made last June. We know that his commitment to reforming the UN and to modernising it so that it can adapt to the modern world are genuine and beyond doubt, but I pause to reflect for a moment on whether he has thought through all the points that he has put forward over recent weeks.
	One thing that the Minister talked about today is expanding the Security Council by bringing in Germany and Japan, and perhaps India, Brazil and another country from Asia. However, he also talked about those countries perhaps coming in without the power of a veto. When pressed, I am afraid that his answers were not as satisfactory on that point as they might otherwise have been. This important area requires further consideration.
	I am also concerned that one of the things that this organisation suffers from more than perhaps any other is the paralysis of an overweening bureaucracy. I do not see too much in the Minister's proposals that will strip away some of that paralysing bureaucracy, make decision making more streamlined and make the implementation of decisions more effective. That being said, we recognise his commitment to the debate and wish him well in taking forward the Government's arguments.
	I welcome the UN's willingness to address the question of reform, which the Annan proposals strive to do. I welcome them also, and the discussions that have been held at the UN, as I do the Secretary-General's assurance that the process of considering reform will be deep and ongoing. It is important that the reform process keeps up with events, which, of course, are developing all the time.
	We were pleased to note the attendance of so many world leaders at the discussions earlier. Our Foreign Secretary attended, but it is surely a matter of regret that our Prime Minister was not able to do so. Few things are more important than the existence of modern and effective global architecture to head off conflict and build a peaceful, prosperous world, and the UN is the pre-eminent organisation when it comes to trying to do that. It really does deserve some quality time from the Prime Minister.
	The UN is, of course, as much about humanitarian and social work as it is about global politics. Peacekeeping and, increasingly, peacemaking play a vital role in preventing the spread of conflict and concomitant problems; but the UN's humanitarian and economic aid work is central to the tackling of the root causes of many of our current problems. We all know that global instability results from global poverty. We want to place on record again our support for the millennium targets requiring us to bear down on global poverty and some of the worst abuses and excesses that we see on so much of the planet.
	I urge the Government to make more use of the UN in respect of difficult problems such as that in Zimbabwe, perhaps by tabling a resolution to internationalise the situation using both the UN's political clout and its humanitarian resources to help that deeply troubled country. I do not understand why the Government still refuse to table such a resolution; perhaps the Minister will explain.
	Many Members have travelled the world and seen some of the excellent work done by many UN organisations, subsidiary bodies and agencies over many years. The World Health Organisation successfully co-ordinated the international response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis, and has been combating various lethal diseases in developing and developed countries for decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been doing vital work, not least in Iran recently—although I note that, in a recent article in The Economist, Mohamad el-Baradei of the IAEA set out in persuasive terms his analysis of his organisation's shortcomings and of possible reforms. Perhaps we could hear the Government's response to some of those thoughts as well. The World Food Programme is relieving starvation in areas afflicted by famine, not least in North Korea, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues to relieve the suffering of people made homeless and stateless by conflict and natural disasters.
	Everywhere we turn, the UN is active. I sometimes pause to wonder whether it is too active, whether it spreads its resources too thinly, and whether it tries to do too much. There is, perhaps, a case for doing less and doing it better. The Minister mentioned recent decisions to prioritise and focus on core business. I should like to see a greater focus on particularly important aspects of security and humanitarian work.
	Perhaps I may be permitted the observation that some UN agencies suffer from an excess of bureaucracy and poor planning. In considering how we can best reform the UN, we must strive to take every opportunity to minimise such constraints on effective action. Might there be in some areas—particularly on the humanitarian side—a more enabling role for the UN? Could much more of the implementation of its policies be subcontracted to non-governmental organisations and other agencies, rather than its doing so much of the work itself with, sometimes, less than effective outcomes?
	Like my predecessor in our last debate on this subject, I have tried to offer a broad-brush view from the Opposition Front Bench, safe in the knowledge that Members in all parts of the House will have important and well-informed contributions to make on more specific matters. The key underlying concept for the modern United Nations must be a blend of idealism and realism that recognises both the noble aspirations of the organisation and the practicalities of the modern world. It is a difficult balance to strike, but an important one to seek.
	The United Nations may have been conceived in a different era, but if it can adapt to the changing needs of the international scene it will be able to make a crucial contribution for many decades to come—a vital contribution to global stability and prosperity, which are issues of concern to us all.

Valerie Davey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on initiating our second debate on the United Nations since the summer recess, and on his strong commitment to it. I also congratulate the Government on their report on the United Kingdom in the United Nations, a valuable document to which I am sure we shall often return.
	That document uses the word "revitalisation" rather than the word "reform" when referring to the UN's future, and I too prefer it. Within the last few years various proposals have been advanced, and various groups have expressed concern about how the UN could be re-established to meet the needs of the 21st century; but none of those involved anticipated what would follow in Iraq, or indeed the more immediate results of the attack on the UN itself in Baghdad on 19 August.
	As has already been pointed out, our debate takes place on an auspicious date. To hold it on Armistice day is indeed fitting. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) reflected on the UN's history, but the crisis we now face and the challenge posed to so many people associated with the UN were brought sharply into focus by the 19 August attack. I was shocked to the core that that building, and the UN's work, had been challenged in such a way. As the days passed, there arose a sobering reflection on the understanding of the UN by the perpetrators of the act—and whether the UN itself fully aware of the difficulty it had got itself into. Was it prepared? Had it done enough work? Was it allied too closely to the coalition groups? A range of questions emerged from the incident, serving as a catalyst for the wider questions that we have all been asking for years.
	That focus, as it were, led to many personal tragedies, and in particular to the death of the individual sent by Kofi Annan, Sergio Vieira de Mello. I shall say something shortly about his life and his contribution to the UN.
	All of us who are here today are committed to reform and revitalisation of the UN. But before becoming involved in what is potentially a fairly arid debate on the number of seats on the Security Council and the order in which its members sit, where buildings will be sold or relocated, or the nature of the General Assembly, let us pause and reflect—as my hon. Friend the Minister did—on the reasons for the UN's establishment, and on its new nature. What is to be its role in the 21st century?
	I think that the millennium projects have given a lift to the concept of the UN, and given it a new focus and priority that are to be welcomed; but, like my hon. Friend, I am concerned about intervention in sovereign states where human rights have been virtually abolished and humanitarian aid for large numbers of people is disintegrating. What should the protocols be? We know how complex and difficult the situation is, but the UN must be prepared to view it as a new aspect of its work.
	Many people—I admit to being one of them—are ever hopeful that the UN will prevent war, will stop war when it has started and, when war has ended, will be there to pick up the pieces, provide humanitarian aid and re-establish democracy. That is a huge agenda, given that at the same time we want the UN to deal with natural disasters by doing all the humanitarian work for which it has such a good reputation. I readily accept that none of that will be done without reform. Tedious, painstaking committee work will be essential for the reform of the United Nations. I commend the work that the Government are doing to bring that about.
	Last December, in a speech in the General Assembly, the Polish Foreign Affairs Minister said that he was looking forward to what he called "a group of sages". Whether Kofi Annan reflected on that and whether his new panel of international statesmen—I gather it is all men, unfortunately—is a reflection of the Polish Minister's consideration, I do not know, but the Polish Minister was certainly reflecting on the need for fresh impetus to be given to the work of the United Nations and for a reinforcement of the basis for the United Nations mandate. No one is asking for the basis of the United Nations charter to be changed, but many people around the world are looking for a reinvigoration of the claims on each individual nation, within the concept of a multi-nation, multilateral organisation. In his speech, the Polish Minister asked that the group of sages draft a document to
	"provide an inspiration to and a basis for the work of the United Nations".
	It is that element of renewing inspiration that prompted my request to speak in the debate.
	Often following a tragedy, I gain huge inspiration from obituaries, and that was the case following the death of Sergio Vieira de Mello on 19 August. I understood the work that he had done. According to commentators, he was a hugely accessible, non-bureaucratic, hard-working and inspirational United Nations administrator. He was a Brazilian educated in France. He worked for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva, made links and did work in Bangladesh, southern Sudan, Cyprus and Mozambique. He then represented the UNHCR in northern Latin American countries, went to the Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia and Kosovo before going to East Timor and Iraq, where after a short time he met his death.
	The life of Sergio Vieira de Mello should be capturing the imagination of others, particularly young people, and inspiring them to take on that work. I hope that in this country we take on board the fact that civics is not just about the state within Britain and Europe. We should teach young people the context of the United Nations. The UN flag used to fly at schools and public buildings on 24 October. I did not check whether it did so this year; I think that I may have been disappointed. We need to allow young people to see that the United Nations is a key factor in many of the things in which they are interested.
	Recently, to my delight on the doorstep, a young person asked me in rather longer terms than I shall express it whether, if she wanted to be involved in aid, she should go into charity work or politics. That young person of 14 has since visited the House and she is thinking that she will be an aid worker first and perhaps enter politics later. We should inspire with the work of the United Nations, too, because I would like young people to be challenged by that work. The UN is not just UNICEF, a charity to deal with those concerns. It does not just meet the needs of the many destitute people of the developing world. It is not just a humanitarian organisation. It is a hugely political organisation, whose role we need to clarify. It should inspire young people.

Crispin Blunt: While I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about the need for the UN and the UN ideal to be an inspiration, does not the tragic example of Mr. Vieira de Mello illustrate the problem? She has made clear the inspirational quality of his life and mentioned his obituaries, yet according to the UN report on what happened in Baghdad, he ignored advice from two teams of UN security specialists to move his office to a safer place, saying that
	"he would leave the matter to his successor".
	Is not the problem that we are wrestling with that, while the UN is an inspirational institution, the reality of how it carries out its functions is sometimes a long way short of what is desirable or optimal?

Valerie Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He underpins exactly what I was intimating in terms of 19 August. That tragedy showed that the United Nations had huge questions to answer about the single building that it was occupying in Baghdad, let alone about the buildings in Washington, London and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that huge mistakes were probably made, which allowed, in part, that tragedy to take place. I accept all that, but the inspiration of the organisation and many individuals within it would enable young people to come together and to do the work. Dialogue is simply one to one; we need the group factor. We need people from different countries, especially young people, to be inspired to take on that work.
	I do not know in what way Vieira de Mello's life will be commemorated, but the idea of scholarships, and of young people getting to know the work of the United Nations better and sharing in some of its work, would be a fitting tribute. I want to ensure that in all the education work we do, and in all the scholarships we offer, the United Nations is an integral element. It should not be a matter of saying that the United Nations is over there. We are a strong member. We are, we hope, leading the way in Europe. We should also make an important contribution to revitalising the United Nations.

Michael Moore: As the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said, it is fitting that we should have this debate on Armistice day and reflect on the causes that gave rise to the need for a United Nations organisation. I also welcome the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) to his new position and commend him for participating in the spirit in which many of the debates on the issue have been held in the past few months, fresh from the difficulties that the House had during the Iraq debates.
	Two months ago, when we debated the United Nations in Westminster Hall, the Minister promised that the occasion was to be an annual event, in response to which there were cross-party pleas that in future the debate should be held in the main Chamber. I do not think that a Minister has often responded so positively or so quickly, and he deserves appropriate credit for that.
	Liberal Democrats hold a deep-seated commitment to the United Nations and a belief that the United Kingdom, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, must give a firm lead on matters of international peace and security. The UN remains the only truly global institution with universal membership and universal principles, which bestow upon it a unique legitimacy. Its remit is vast. Beyond peace and security, the UN and its agencies work diligently to improve the economic and social condition of people across the globe. The UN has also performed a valuable and unique role in assisting countries in transition in recent years. However, in the past year the UN has rarely been out of the headlines, often for the wrong reasons, as the world has grappled with the situation in Iraq. The organisation has had to come to terms with the August tragedy in Baghdad, where it found itself in the front line and lost 22 of its personnel. As the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, this House and the country should never lose sight of the danger in which members of the UN organisations put themselves daily. In response to that terrible event, one commentator reported that the grief at UN headquarters was heightened by the sense that those who died were not simply working for an institution, but rather serving a cause. That encapsulates the complexities of the UN, which adds up to more than the sum of its intergovernmental parts. It also illustrates the difficulties we face in contemplating reform of the organisation.
	The Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has set out his concerns more boldly than most. In a press briefing in September, he said that, on peace and security, he was not sure
	"whether the consensus and the vision that the Millennium Declaration expressed are still intact. Member States have been sharply divided about some of the most fundamental issues that this Organization was set up to deal with . . . I think all States need to take more account of global realities, and of each other's views and interests. They must set a higher priority on finding common ground and agreeing on common strategies, rather than striking out on their own. And if they do not want others to strike out on their own, they need to show how multilateral systems really can deal with the problems that are of concern and worry to others."
	Hear, hear to that.
	The Secretary-General highlighted key institutions such as the Security Council as being in need of reform. Never mind the recent difficulties that have been much debated; the world has changed and, to a large extent, the UN has not. In nearly 60 years, the UN has increased its membership from 51 countries—when the world population was 2.5 billion—to 188 countries, with a world population somewhere in the region of 6 billion. In that time, the institutional structure of the UN has barely changed. The need for reform is self-evident.
	Liberal Democrats have long supported the expansion of the Security Council. We support the enlargement of the Security Council to include Germany and Japan and to include an additional member each from Latin America, Africa and Asia as new permanent members. We would add the caveat that any new members must have a clean bill of health at the UN and have no outstanding UN resolutions with which they have not complied.
	The work of the UN has changed, as has the world in which it operates. The Security Council has on occasion become more proactive and has undertaken field missions to Indonesia and East Timor, Kosovo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This trend is to be encouraged, but such missions must be adequately resourced and member states must follow up on the recommendations of the Security Council. The Security Council must give conflict prevention a higher priority in its work, and must develop a more systematic and professional approach to the prevention of conflicts.

Crispin Blunt: On the operation in the Congo, what does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the EU setting up its own force there, separate from the UN? Surely it would have been better for the EU to act in support of the UN by joining the UN force, and by helping to provide Security Council resolutions to enable the force to act effectively.

Michael Moore: My understanding—I stand to be corrected—was that the EU was approached to carry out its functions in that matter and that it does so under the auspices of the UN. [Interruption.] I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman speaks in the debate, he will explore that issue further.
	One area that has not been touched on this afternoon, but where there is a glaring need for reform, is the number of outstanding Security Council resolutions that gather dust and which have been ignored or not been complied with. Surely a UN designed for the 21st century should have systems in place to ensure that, in future, the terms of Security Council resolutions are not allowed to gather dust. In that respect, the Secretary-General should undertake an annual resolutions review to determine which obligations are outstanding and what action needs to be taken to comply with them.
	The Iraq conflict threw the international order into chaos because it challenged the existing notions of sovereignty and what is or is not legal under the charter. There is a legitimate debate about this area, some of which has been rehearsed here this afternoon; there is no need to repeat the finer points.
	Earlier today—as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said—the Foreign Secretary highlighted the need to reform the charter to take account of failing and rogue states. There are echoes here of the Prime Minister who, in his much-quoted keynote speech in Chicago on 22 April 1999, said that the
	"most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get involved in other people's conflicts".
	In September of that year, the Secretary-General—in his address to the General Assembly—noted that
	"no legal principle—not even sovereignty—can shield crimes against humanity".
	If we are to make progress in this area, there must be a clear framework for intervention, defined and qualified by formal criteria and principles. It is important to remember that humanitarian intervention could in itself serve as a deterrent to future conflicts. It is also important that those criteria and principles are understood in the wider UN.
	We believe that a framework of humanitarian intervention should also recognise that the objective of any intervention should be a better state of peace. The UN and its members must be prepared to commit not only to peace enforcement, but to the provision of substantial economic resources in the long term once stability has been restored.

Hugh Robertson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the basis for humanitarian intervention, but unless the criteria are tightly tied down, we can get Mogadishu-type situations; indeed, UN forces in Bosnia encountered similar problems. Unless the two parties involved in the country concerned want to resolve the conflict, it is extremely difficult for the UN force to do it for them. If the UN tries to do that, those delivering humanitarian aid get sucked into the conflict, becoming targets and a part of the problem.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point. Clearly we need to ensure that the parties to a conflict make every effort to end it, and ensure that they are committed to peace. I cannot help but feel that, in so doing, the UN would be a great deal more credible if it had a set of guiding principles and criteria on the basis of which it was prepared to commit an intervention force to a particular country or region. That is what we lack at the moment, and that is where much of the pain and grief of the past year has come from.
	There must be a better way of planning for the aftermath of conflicts and the reconstruction efforts that flow from them. The unseemly diplomatic battles after the end of the formal conflict in Iraq should not be forgotten. Even yet, the situation is far from clear.
	The International Criminal Court has become a major tool of the international community in advancing the rule of international law in general and international humanitarian law in particular. Britain's role in bringing the court into being deserves praise, but it is sad to note that the British Government appear at the same time to be undermining the cohesion of the European Union on the issue and assisting in the bilateral article 98 immunity agreements that the US is keen to introduce with many countries. There will be looming difficulties in coming months as the US and the EU clash over their approach to the court in their relations with third countries. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to make the British stance clear in that regard.
	The Government wrote in 2000:
	"We strongly urge all countries to sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, so as to consolidate and extend the gains we have achieved in bringing to justice those responsible for crimes against humanity. There can be no stronger measure to break the culture of impunity that has for so long shielded those guilty of crimes against humanity."
	I hope that the Minister can stand by that commitment today.
	Peacekeeping has long been recognised as one of the key areas of UN activity, producing successes and, sadly, also many failures. There is a well-recognised need to develop the UN's capacity for peacekeeping, and we support the creation of an early-warning intelligence-gathering unit. A capability for the rapid establishment of operational headquarters in the field should also be developed. That would allow for better co-ordination of UN peacekeeping missions in the early stages of an operation, especially between UN headquarters and those in the field. Once deployed, UN peacekeepers must be able to carry out their mandate professionally and successfully. That means that UN military units must be capable of defending themselves, other mission components and the mission mandate. Rules of engagement need to be sufficiently robust, so that UN contingents are not forced to cede the initiative to hostile elements. No longer must UN blue helmets stand by while the most serious crimes against humanity are being committed.
	Peacekeeping has become central to the United Nations and is perhaps the most important yardstick by which its performance is measured nowadays. The funding of peacekeeping therefore needs to be placed on a firmer basis. In short, we firmly believe that the doctrine of peacekeeping, which evolved in the 1950s in the context of interstate conflict, is no longer valid for the intra-state conflicts of the 21st century. Many of those conflicts throw into sharp focus the millennium development goals, and through emergency aid and long-term assistance the UN does much of its most valuable work. It is, as one commentator put it, a
	"court of last resort for millions of refugees, child soldiers and the impoverished".
	We need to ensure that it is fit to do that job.
	We firmly believe that a review and strengthening of UN finances are long overdue. The scope of UN responsibilities and the hopes invested in the organisation are immense, but the budget for the core functions is just $1.25 billion a year. That is significantly less than Birmingham's annual budget for 2000–01, and about 4 per cent. of New York city's annual budget. UN resources are simply not commensurate with its global tasks. Non-payment of dues should not be tolerated, and we must hope that the Government will support efforts to get back-payments brought up to date.
	Before concluding, I want to pay tribute to Britain's own major contribution to the United Nations. The Liberal Democrats believe that for many generations, Britain has lived up to its position as a founding member and permanent member of the Security Council. Although we have at times profoundly disagreed with the UK Government's approach to key issues such as Iraq, we recognise that Britain's role in the UN has none the less always been a strong one. Indeed, the diplomats based there are some of the finest to be found.
	The UN has no right, divine or otherwise, to exist. It must be relevant to the principles that underpin it, and fit to achieve the objectives that we set it. We still need an international body that is devoted to peace and security on one hand, and to development and emergency assistance on the other. The principles therefore remain valid—indeed, perhaps more than ever. But no one can deny that the UN's organisational and political structures need wholesale reform. We should support the efforts of Kofi Annan and the president of the General Assembly—and, indeed, of this Government—with enthusiasm, or, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West put it, in a way that inspires. Through that, we can hope to produce an institution fit for the 21st century.

Alan Howarth: The United Nations has changed in the years since 1945. Its membership has greatly increased, the Security Council was enlarged in the mid-1960s, and the Counter-Terrorism Committee was set up recently, after 11 September. As the Government's Command Paper notes, the UN has responded to the great changes of decolonisation and the end of the cold war, and the new challenges of HIV/AIDS, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and civil conflict.
	The UN's mission, affirmed in 1945 so eloquently, movingly and indeed succinctly in the preamble to the charter, remains valid: to maintain peace, to advance human rights, to uphold international law and
	"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."
	At the millennium Assembly in 2000, Heads of State and of Government reaffirmed those principles, while defining their priorities for the new century:
	"the fight for development of all the peoples of the world; the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight against the degradation of our common home."
	As the Secretary-General has said in his report of 9 September 2002:
	"The need for an effective multilateral institution—one dedicated to the service of humanity as a whole—has never been more acutely felt than in the current era of globalisation . . . The challenge ahead is to strengthen our capability for collective action."
	Of course, the UN has its contemporary successes. Large amounts of aid are delivered, increasingly in partnership with non-governmental organisations and the private sector. Relatively unpublicised good work has been carried forward in the reconstruction of Sierra Leone, for example. The world is a very much better place in innumerable ways because of the presence and activities of the UN and its agencies.
	The world, however, while pinning many hopes on the UN, is all too conscious of its deficiencies. How could it have happened that the UN, while claiming to defend Bosnia, effectively abandoned it, tacitly co-operating, it has been seriously argued, with Serbian ethnic cleansing? On one occasion, Serbs were even reported as wearing blue berets provided by UN troops. How could it be that at least 800,000 people, out of an original population of 7.5 million, were massacred in Rwanda, with the warnings of the UN commander in Rwanda and his pleas for more soldiers and matériel seemingly dismissed in New York?
	Can the UN truly claim to have been doing all that it could to end the continuing conflict that has cost 2 million lives in the eastern Congo? We know of the miseries of Liberia. We know that the Taliban's abuses of human rights and the failure of Government in Afghanistan were neglected, while al-Qaeda used the haven of that failed state to build its capacity. We know that great areas of the world have become poorer now than they were 10 years ago. We know that for years on end, the UN has failed to enforce its own resolutions, which have been routinely breached by Iraq and by Israel. We can see now the results of the failure to plan adequately for post-war reconstruction in Iraq—a responsibility, however, that is as much the international community's as the UN's. One can make that distinction in this context. We have seen the culpable failure of security that permitted the tragic terrorist bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August, and the consequent evacuation of the UN's international personnel from Iraq.
	No one is a shrewder critic of the UN than its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. In his report of 9 September 2002, building on the reforms begun in 1997, he set out a whole programme of reform. He advocated a more representative and open Security Council; changes in the procedures of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council; better prioritisation, abandonment of obsolete concerns and a sharper performance by the Secretariat; better co-ordination of UN agencies, committees and activities; a reformed budget process as a lever for further reforms; fewer meetings and less paper. In 2001–02 Kofi Annan noted—unbelievably—that 15,484 meetings were held and 5,879 reports issued. He also advocated fewer conferences and better follow-up in respect of those that are held; reform of the office and procedures of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; better communications, and much else. I am glad that the Government are giving vigorous support to the Secretary-General's agenda.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out, however, the issue is less institutional than political. Without the will for reform among Governments and if agreement cannot be reached on how to deal with the difficult problems of international affairs, it is no good railing against the UN. Governments do not find it difficult to genuflect to the great abstractions and the broadly stated principles of the charter. What is hard, apparently, is to make generosity of vision a practical reality.
	Kofi Annan rightly upbraided the General Assembly on 23 September this year:
	"The last 12 months have been very painful for those of us who believe in collective answers to our common problems and challenges".
	He drew attention to terrorism in many countries; violence in the middle east and Africa; the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula; and, of course, the position in Iraq. He reminded the General Assembly of the consensus expressed three years ago in the millennium declaration, but said, as the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) reminded us,
	"recent events have called that consensus in question".
	He put it to the General Assembly:
	"We have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself . . . I respectfully suggest to you, Excellencies, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulty of reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so."
	He then announced a high-level panel to take a hard look at fundamental issues and at the structural changes that may be needed.
	The panel's task of analysis and prescription is difficult and the diplomacy required for nations to reach agreement will be yet more so.
	We are looking at a world in which there is no longer a balance of power and where the nature of the state and of threats to peace and security have been changing profoundly. Globalisation, communications technology, modern weaponry and migration all mean that borders and sovereignty—and therefore state identities—have different, perhaps less, meaning from what they used to have. States in which Governments have collapsed and poverty is desperate—failed states—may be incapable of undertaking the responsibilities that UN principles require of them.
	Multinational corporations and financial markets, the arms trade, international organised crime and the drugs trade create and characterise global power structures that are very different from those of 1945. The crises of migration and water shortages require new thinking and new accommodations. The communications revolution, transmitting news and images instantly across the world, has profound implications for global politics. The rise of fanatical ideologies interacting with poverty and hopelessness, the absence of democracy and the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction present the most dangerous pathology and the most pressing case for renewal of the UN.
	It is far too dangerous to sleepwalk further into this new world of the 21st century. Countries are now tempted to claim a right of pre-emptive action in self-defence to take out the threat of terrorism equipped with WMD before an attack occurs. The Secretary-General rightly expresses deep concern about the proliferation of the unilateral use of force outside the bounds of article 51 of the charter. Equally rightly, as the Minister reminded us, Kofi Annan said that it is not enough to denounce unilateralism unless we face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel so vulnerable, and he invited discussion on the criteria for early authorisation of coercive measures to address certain types of threat.
	International law has always evolved—from the Pax Romana to the religious peace of Augsburg, from the treaties of Westphalia and Utrecht to the Congress of Vienna, from Versailles and the League of Nations to San Francisco and the peace of Paris in 1990—as jurists and statesmen have sought to reflect the interdependent development of strategy and constitutionalism, the new realities of insecurity and power.
	In a sense, honourable and learned differences of opinion about the legitimacy of the coalition's intervention in Iraq are by the way. What matters is that the international community develops authoritative ways as a community to deal with the problems of today and tomorrow, which are different from those of 1945 or the 1980s. The alternative will be a capricious, mainly well-intended, but often blundering American hegemony seeking to police a Hobbesian international chaos.

Hugh Robertson: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). His was a very lucid and balanced speech, and I hope that it will not embarrass him if I say that it was hard for me to disagree with anything he said. It was an excellent contribution.
	I have a direct personal interest in the UN. As a young Army officer, I served in the UN force in Cyprus in 1988. In 1994, I returned to Bosnia for six months, with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. I have always supported the UN but, in common with many hon. Members, I am not blind to its problems.
	It would be fair to start by saying that there are a number of areas in which the UN has done exceptionally well. The UN General Assembly is a parliament of nations, with 191 members. Any state that becomes a member signs the UN charter and pledges to uphold its principles. In this world, that is worth having on its own.
	The UN Economic and Social Council—ECOSOC—co-ordinates the economic and social work of the UN and its family of organisations. It has five regional committees that promote economic development and co-operation in their regions. Other bodies focus on human rights, social development, women, crime prevention, drugs and environmental protection. Other UN bodies do fine work in their own fields. They include the UNHCR, UNICEF, the UN Development Programme, and UNESCO. In addition, specialist agencies are linked to the UN through co-operative agreements. They include the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The UN has a considerable record of achievement, of which it can justifiably be proud.
	In addition, the UN millennium development goals were announced at the millennium summit in September 2000. The pledges made then, among others, were to halve poverty and hunger by 2015, to achieve universal primary education, to combat HIV/AIDS, to ensure environmental sustainability, and to bring down the level of child mortality, which are all extremely worthwhile.
	I believe, however, that debt relief is key. Globalisation should be used as a force for good, by giving developing countries access to markets that currently are denied to them. It is daft to give developing countries debt relief, yet deny them the ability to export their goods. It is vital to break the link between dependency and debt.
	The UN has done good work in a number of other areas, but it has also attracted criticism. Peacekeeping is one example, and several other hon. Members have spoken about it. The House may be surprised to learn that the UN has been involved in 56 operations since 1948, but the record is rather mixed.
	There are two types of UN peacekeeping operations—chapter VI operations, when the Security Council acts in a persuasive capacity, and chapter VIII operations, when the resolutions are mandatory, and the measures adopted are coercive.
	A number of chapter VI operations have been extremely successful, such as those in Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador and Mozambique. In Cyprus, the UN force maintains the peace but until recently the intransigence of the parties involved has resulted in a lack of progress. Even on the Golan heights, the UN has managed to maintain a level of peace, but the situation has, of course, yet to be resolved.
	Recent chapter VI operations have developed and become more all embracing. They do not deliver only a military solution, but involve delivering humanitarian aid, organising elections, and administering states' economic and social development. In many ways, Bosnia offers an extremely good example of all that.
	I believe that the history of UN operations teaches us three things. If chapter VI operations are to work, they require a measure of co-operation from the participants. That means, first, that the parties involved must agree to stop fighting and settle their differences. Secondly, there has to be an acceptance of the UN's negotiating and peacekeeping role. Thirdly, adequate manpower and financial resources must be made available. Without that, it is extremely difficult for an operation to be successful.
	For those reasons, the chapter VIII operations have fared less well. The sanctions that often act as a precursor do not always work as a coercive device that falls short of military force. Arms embargoes, oil embargoes and wider economic measures have not worked in places such as Iraq, Somalia, Liberia, Haiti, Angola, South Africa and, many years ago, in Southern Rhodesia. There were many ways of getting round such sanctions.
	The military structures built into chapter VIII operations do not always work well. The contributing countries almost always insist on a measure of command and control, or want it delegated to an organisation such as NATO. For entirely understandable reasons, unless they have some control, western Governments are often unwilling to commit troops to stop people killing one another. Hon. Members will be aware of the wider feeling that the essence of the UN is incompatible with the use of force in such circumstances. We have to acknowledge that the UN's peacekeeping record has been mixed. If it is to be successful, it is crucial that the parties involved want to stop fighting and to settle their differences.
	I want to touch on two other points where the UN's record is mixed, the first of which is justice. We have already talked about the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but there is more to international justice than a court. Events during the build-up to the war in Iraq showed that the legal backdrop of the UN needs updating, as the Foreign Secretary said at Question Time today. That should hardly surprise us, as those legal bases were drawn up more than 50 years ago, since when the world has changed considerably. As countries increasingly use the UN to establish the legitimacy of their actions, a rethink of the whole matter is vital.
	The second point relates to human rights. Put brutally, many UN members have failed to live up to the principles embodied in the universal declaration of human rights. It may be invidious to name particular countries, but Burma, Algeria, Iraq, Sudan and, most notably, Zimbabwe are only a few examples. As hon. Members are aware, Libya was recently elected chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights. That is clearly wrong.
	When we consider the balance sheet, we see that the UN has excelled in many things, especially in the economic and social sphere, and has done much that is positive, such as peacekeeping, on which its record is more mixed. As I pointed out, much remains to be done on justice and human rights.
	What is to be done about reforming the United Nations? I have six suggestions; three are practical and three are more theoretical. My first practical suggestion is that the financing of the UN needs to be reformed. Certain countries pay disproportionate sums; the United States, the EU and Japan pay approximately 75 per cent. of the contributions, which is far too much. The US contribution has a marked effect on military operations and, in effect, gives the US a form of veto over peacekeeping operations.
	We should work for a new system in which the United States and Japan pay about 10 per cent., the EU pays about 35 per cent. and a much greater percentage—about 45 per cent.—comes from others. The Gulf states, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Russia, India, Canada and Australia, to name but a few, could all contribute much more than they do currently.
	Secondly, the structure of the UN should be reformed. That suggestion should not be surprising; the format was established in the post-war climate and flourished during the cold war, but the world is now a different place. Threats are less local and more globalised, and include terrorism, drugs and immigration and environmental issues. The structure of the UN must reflect that. A wide-ranging review should be conducted, and the Minister mentioned that such work is under way. It should include such things as the powers of the Secretary-General, which, by any standards, are extraordinarily wide at present. The subjects for debate at the General Assembly need clarification. Kofi Annan has described the debates as repetitive and sterile. The number and powers of members of the Security Council must be examined. I would support an increase in the number of members, but we must be careful about increasing the right of veto in case that merely leads to inaction.
	There needs to be a streamlining and refocusing of UN agencies. As I said at the start of my speech, we have a huge number of UN agencies, which could be restructured and refocused. We need to examine the way in which the UN interacts with non-governmental organisations. I saw a number of good examples of that in Bosnia, where the connection between the UN and NGOs was not great. The UN stood at the top of the pile and very much believed that it was in charge of the process, and a lot of the NGOs felt that they did not get the support that they required from the UN as the lead agency.
	Across the UN, working methods and decision-making processes need to be improved. We must improve the transparency of the entire organisation. The responses to the crises that we face in the modern world must also be examined. They need to be much more wide-ranging, not just military, diplomatic, humanitarian, legal and so forth. The structures currently do not reflect that. As everyone would agree, there is too much bureaucracy and waste.
	The final practical suggestion is that the UN should seek actively to recruit and retain better-quality staff. The organisation can only be a reflection of the standard of the people who work in it. I shall share with the House a horror story. When I was working with the UN in Bosnia, a permanently employed UN civil servant, who occupied one of the key positions in northern Bosnia, could neither read nor write English, yet he was expected to fill out weekly returns. In the current era, that is simply unacceptable.
	Too many people occupy senior positions because they are their country's representatives, rather than because they deserve to be there on merit. Too many special representatives of the Secretary-General—SRSGs—in individual countries are there because they know the right people at the right time. I should have thought that, if we are to make any progress with the UN, it must have in place a proper recruiting structure, open to everyone, with appropriate educational opportunities for all those who enter its service.
	We might also take a look at some of the UN's governing principles. Ever since it first began, the UN has supported the integrity of states within their existing frontiers. However, as we all know, many of those frontiers are artificial or unrealistic. A good example is our experience in Bosnia, where a viable country was created by using new frontiers. There are other recent examples in places as diverse as Nagorno-Karabakh and, possibly more controversially, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The UN must not ignore that sea change.
	In common with many other hon. Members, I support the desire for more effective preventive action. Action must be taken to defuse crises before they explode into warfare. The agenda for peace and the Secretary-General's annual report for 1993 focused on exactly that topic. It has been alive for 10 years, yet I have not seen an enormous amount of constructive action. Effective proactive measures are vital if many of the threats that we face in today's world are not to come about.
	Finally, on a military basis, we must look at the command and control of the forces that the UN deploys under chapter VI or chapter VIII. There needs to be a proper military staff at the UN headquarters and the Security Council needs to be in strategic, political command, with the day-to-day control of operations delegated to an SRSG or to its force commander. The current set-ups, which are often too complicated, simply do not work well.
	In conclusion, as I said at the outset of the debate, I am still extremely supportive of the UN. It has achieved a great deal in nearly 60 years of its existence. One can genuinely say that the glass is half-full, not half-empty. However, everyone would agree that the UN needs reform. I have made a number of suggestions, particularly about its structure, financing and recruitment policy. Other hon. Members will have other good ideas, as has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	The more that I thought about the subject and revisited a number of case studies, the more one central factor became obvious: the UN can certainly defuse crises, separate combatants and set the stage for negotiations, but it often cannot solve the underlying disputes—only the parties themselves can do that. To that extent, the UN is not so much a tool as a mirror: its failings are very often our failings. Some years ago, Lord Caradon, the former head of the UK's mission, said while examining the United Nations:
	"The faults and weaknesses of the UN lie not in the charter or the organisation but in the defects of its most powerful members".
	In my view, the UN needs reform, but many of Lord Caradon's sentiments remain true today.

Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who spoke from practical experience of having worked under the United Nations.
	As most hon. Members have said, it is appropriate that the debate is being held today, when we remember those who gave their lives in wars, from one of which came the United Nations. It is also appropriate, however, that it is being held against the backdrop of a very different war in Iraq, the build-up to which brought the United Nations to the brink. Almost a year ago, I was fortunate enough, along with other Members, to visit the United Nations. People have expressed their admiration for the contribution that Britain has made over the past 60 years to the organisation's work, but everyone whom we met there also expressed the same admiration for our efforts, even though it was a very difficult time.
	At the time of our visit, there were grounds for optimism that the Iraq situation could be resolved peacefully through the United Nations. The Security Council had not only passed resolution 1441 but had done so unanimously. We now know, however, that that optimism was misplaced and short-lived. The failure of the Security Council to agree a so-called second resolution led not only to the UN being parked in the crisis, but to a very different solution being chosen. That raised serious questions about whether multilateralism could survive, and whether the UN had a role in future crisis management and resolution. Rather than push questions about reform on to the back burner, it has brought those questions further forward.
	I want to make some general points before moving on to specific areas. First, there is the fundamental question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) mentioned: how does an association of 191 nation states not only survive but function effectively in a world in which the power of nation states, domestically and internationally, is increasingly challenged? It is perhaps ironic that when the cold war ended new nation states came forward and rushed to join the United Nations, which was rightly seen as a sign that they had arrived on the world stage. They must work within a global environment that is very different from that of even a decade ago, however, and for some of them it is a struggle to deal with the challenges of globalisation, especially when their authority at home, and the order that exists there, extends little further than their capital cities.
	There is a temptation, of which there has been a hint in today's debate, to blame bad governance. There is no doubt that, around the world, there are Governments who can rightly be criticised and who have made matters worse. The United Nations continues to have an important role in encouraging good governance, but many of the problems associated with globalisation—global poverty, famine, drought, AIDS, refugees from civil wars or international terrorism—do not respect national boundaries. Not only do some nation states struggle to come to terms with those problems, but their failure to do so worsens the situation and exports problems not just to surrounding areas but further beyond. It seems to me that the United Nations is uniquely placed in those respects and already has many crucial programmes in place. It has the capacity to be more than just the sum total of 191 constituent parts, and is still the world's foremost transnational as well as international organisation. It must adapt if it is to remain relevant, however, and it must change if is to survive, and it must do so as radically as it did during the 1960s and 1970s to meet the challenges of decolonisation.
	Problems such as famine, world poverty and AIDS are now endemic. Those problems are hugely important, but it is likely that headlines will reflect the civil wars that rage throughout the world or the threat from international terrorism for the foreseeable future. For that reason, if for no other, reform of the Security Council is crucial because it is charged, under the UN charter, with maintaining international peace and security.
	The Minister has already made it clear that the UK supports an enlarged Security Council, so I hope that we will use the presidency to press the case for reform. We must be prepared to reform not only the permanent membership of the Security Council, but non-permanent membership. If permanent membership of the Security Council is to reflect the reality of economic power, it is difficult to make a case against such membership for Germany or Japan. However, if we are to avoid, as we must, the charge that the Security Council is a rich nations' club, we must also recognise the case for regional powers. There is a case for India or Pakistan to join the Security Council. There is clearly a case for Brazil to be a member. Although no one has mentioned it this afternoon, there is a case for an African state to have permanent membership—a case can be made for South Africa. If we ask more of South Africa as a regional or even a continental power, that should be reflected in the permanent membership of the Security Council.

Angus Robertson: I support the hon. Gentleman's argument about the Security Council. I do not know whether he intends to touch on the question of retaining the veto for the current permanent five members. Does he think that there are inherent dangers in creating a two-tier permanent membership of the Security Council?

Alan Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I would have raised it specifically but I have not yet reached a conclusion. I started by thinking that we must examine the veto with a view to getting rid of it or changing it fundamentally. I then realised that the Security Council faces a big danger, not if it goes ahead to do something or if it does nothing, but if it gets caught in the middle. If the veto were removed, it would formalise divisions in the Security Council, which would be a terrible outcome. If it does nothing, we may have to live with that, and if it does something, that is fine. However, if it is divided, fundamental questions must be asked. A two-tier system of permanent members would be unacceptable, but I have yet to reach a conclusion.
	My hon. Friend the Minister said that, if permanent membership was reformed, it would be the job of the countries that form continents to decide their representatives. There is a strong case to be made for countries such as South Africa because its membership would give the United Nations an effective way to link directly with African efforts to prevent conflict and restore peace in the continent. I fear that instability might otherwise go unchecked, which might encourage western powers to take unilateral or even joint action in the form of expeditionary forays into Africa to try to remove a threat or restore order. I wonder whether that would result in a 21st century scramble for Africa or an equally bad scramble from Africa, if it was decided to leave it to its fate.
	A reformed Security Council will be effective only if it works within a reformed system of international law. The Security Council has a responsibility to prevent, as well as to react to, conflict. That raises fundamental questions about issues such as self-defence, pre-emption and sovereignty. We live in a world in which threats may not take years or even months to develop because they may strike more quickly and might not come from a nation state. We urgently need a much better set of guidelines for action, whether on humanitarian or human rights grounds, or in response to a threat from rogue states and international terrorism.
	When we visited the UN, the Counter-Terrorism Committee was in the early stages of its work under the superb chairmanship of our ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. There are already grounds for optimism, as all the states that have signed up have taken positive steps. However, it is increasingly clear that the CTC has a long-term job to do, and that it requires resources. It should be a permanent body, not just a sub-committee of the Security Council. It should have a wider remit so that it can tackle the proliferation, not just of weapons of mass destruction but of conventional weapons. That is not an easy task, as we discovered on our visit. We discussed the CTC with the permanent representative of a middle eastern state who said that his Government were fully signed up to the war against terror, and were prepared to condemn terrorism without reservation, except in the case of Hamas, which, in his Government's view, was a group of freedom fighters. That underlines the extent of the problem.
	The General Assembly debate that we listened to made a Labour party meeting on a wet Saturday morning seem interesting and relevant—[Hon. Members: "No!"] I assure my hon. Friends that it did. The trend to involve other non-governmental organisations in the work of the General Assembly should be encouraged as a catalyst for change. There are, as has been mentioned, plans to reform the secretariat, but appointments are often short-term and do not seem to be based on a system of merit. There is certainly very little performance appraisal. The key question remains, is there a will to reform and, if so, what is the time scale? A week can be a long time in UK politics, but a year or even a decade can be a short time in UN politics.
	Finally, we must invest not only in the work of the UN but in the UN itself. The UN headquarters building physically reminds people that the organisation is stuck in the 1970s, or in an even earlier period. The communications division of the secretariat is oddly out of touch with the 24-hour news-conscious world. It does the UN little good when images of weapons inspectors in Iraq are flashed up on television screens around the globe and they look startled as they are set upon by the world's media. This is not just an issue for the developed world, as we live increasingly in a global media environment. The UN often has to win hearts and minds in trouble spots around the world, and may well face another battle to win hearts and minds in donor countries, where people may question whether it is relevant in the long term. That is a battle that neither the UN nor any of us can afford to lose.

Andrew Robathan: Like the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and, I suspect, all contributors to our debate, I support the United Nations, although I often do so because it is the only show in town. I agree with much that the Minister said, and should like to talk about the effective use of taxpayers' money and how it is spent by the UN.
	I have seen many UN operations around the world, both with the International Development Committee and in other capacities. Its staff drive large white 4x4s, they are on fairly large salaries and pensions, and their children's school fees are paid. They pay attention to their careers, have weekends off and usually occupy the best villas in town. I remember that in Sarajevo there were no vehicles on the streets in 1997 except UN 4x4s, and all the best villas around the city were occupied by UN personnel. However, I do not have a problem with that. If people are sent regularly to some ghastly spot they need to be well looked after.
	Others have spoken of Bosnia, Srebrenica, Rwanda and the Congo, where conflict is now going on, but I should like to concentrate specifically on the effectiveness of UN aid, which is paid for to a large extent by UK taxpayers—I think that we are the fourth largest contributor—with regard to mine action. In July 1998, we passed into law the Ottawa convention; indeed, I was here at the time. Article 5 says:
	"Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible but not later than ten years after the entry into force of this Convention for that State Party."
	Of course, the convention was very much a UN document. Those statements were made in 1998, and five years have already gone by. After the second world war and six years of war across the European continent, it took approximately five years to clear almost all the mines that had been laid in Europe. My point is that, as the Ottawa convention and what happened after the second world war show, mine clearance is a finite, short-term problem.
	I should declare an unremunerated interest, as I am chairman of the trustees of an organisation called the HALO Trust, which is the largest humanitarian de-mining NGO in the world. It clears mines in Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and a host of other countries, and started its activities in Afghanistan in 1988. I use the HALO Trust as an example, but other NGOs could be cited, such as the Mines Action Group, which often work under the aegis of the UN. Since 1988, the HALO Trust has cleared well over 1.5 million land mines and pieces of unexploded ordnance worldwide. The income that it used for such clearing last year was $36 million, and it employs a total of 5,500 staff, of whom only 30 are expatriates—a ratio of about 1:200 expatriates to national staff. On that income, it is reckoned that the HALO Trust cleared approximately 30 per cent. of the mines lifted and cleared around the world last year.
	The HALO Trust has been operating in Afghanistan since 1988, and throughout the conflict, apart from a couple of times when it had to stop operations under the Taliban. It has three expatriates there and 1,900 local staff, 1,500 of whom are down on their hands and knees clearing ground. In 2002, it lifted 75 per cent. of the mines cleared in Afghanistan. We had money from the United Nations in Afghanistan, but trying to get it out of the UN was like trying to get blood from a stone. The fact that the money was not forthcoming from the UN led to people being laid off. At the same time, when the UN distributes money to implementing partners, it takes a slice off the top for administration. That money is not for administration in New York, which is paid for by core funding, but the slice is up to 13 per cent.
	I turn now to United Nations mine action. What is it? The United Nations Development Programme website states that mine action is an
	"interagency consultative process, involving several other agencies, to develop a collective, comprehensive and coherent UN system policy on all those activities which aim to address the impact as a result of landmine contamination."
	I hope that that is entirely clear. UNMAS, the United Nations Mines Action Service, describes itself on the UNDP website as
	"a coordinator and facilitator at the field level."
	I thought that mine action was about clearing mines. The same website states:
	"UNDP works in mine action rather than demining . . . Mine action is a comprehensive term encompassing four main components: Mine awareness and risk reduction education; minefield mapping, marking and clearance; victims assistance and rehabilitation; and advocacy at the international level. . . . Secondary components are management and institutional arrangements."
	I think that hon. Members can see what I am getting at, but I should like to give a final quote from the UNDP. It says:
	"National ownership over mine action at country level is essential for short-term effectiveness and longer-term sustainability . . . National institutions need to be built from the ground up."
	That is exactly what NGOs such as HALO do, so one has to ask who actually does it. The website also states:
	"UNDP's primary collaborators do not encompass assistance to victims of a more medical nature. This aspect of victim assistance is better managed by UNICEF, WHO and others."
	So UNMAS and UNDP do not blow up mines or deal with the after-effects of mines, so my question is, what exactly do they do?
	The website continues:
	"There are situations where a mine clearance operation is needed quickly to defuse a potential humanitarian catastrophe. In these . . . situations . . . a wide range of actors"—
	here it gives a list, including the HALO Trust—
	"may be better placed to respond to the need. UNDP should avoid becoming involved in these emergency situations, except to provide full logistical support to our partners. UNDP's primary interest is in building national structures able to successfully clear mines into the long term."
	We might term that last task "capacity building", but the Ottawa convention mentions a period of 10 years, and experience has shown that unless someone lays more mines, they are a finite problem. The role of UNMAS therefore includes facilitating, co-ordinating, management and capacity building. It involves people in headquarters, not people clearing mines.
	UNMAS has 13 expatriates in Kabul in Afghanistan. What exactly are they doing? One of UNMAS's roles is co-ordination, and we agree that everybody needs co-ordination, but it can be achieved nationally by Government, even in a country that is being rebuilt, assuming that no corruption is involved. In Angola, which I visited recently with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), co-ordination was achieved between the NGOs and they did not need an overarching body. HALO took responsibility for clearing one province and the Mines Advisory Group took responsibility for another. Co-ordination can be achieved with a lighter touch.
	UNMAS does not need 13 expatriates in Kabul. The UNDP agrees, as we can see from its statement to the mine action support group meeting on 9 October about Sri Lanka:
	"Due to the fact that parts of Sri Lankan territory still are under the control of non-state actors"—
	that means terrorists—
	"there is no central mine action coordination centre yet . . . Despite the lack of a central mine action coordination, the cooperation of both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE"—
	that is the Tamil Tigers, if memory serves—
	"with UNDP and NGO's is satisfactory and provides overall compatibility of mine action policies."
	So co-ordination can be achieved, according to the UNDP, without the UNDP's assistance.
	Anyone who has examined the costs and the funding of the United Nations will know that it is opaque and confused—to put it mildly. We funded more than 5 per cent. of the UN's activities last year and are the fourth largest contributor. The UN website for mine action says that $206 million is spent on that activity alone. It says that the organisation plans to have 8,000 de-miners. It does not have them yet, and I would like to know where they will be based. HALO fields a de-miner for $6,300, so the UN—on its funding—should have more than 31,000. On its own figures, it spends $154 million on co-ordination and other headquarters functions. I put it to the Minister, and to his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development, that that is not why we give money for humanitarian work to the UNDP. That is not implementation: it is bureaucratic waffle under the heading of co-ordination.
	Finally, I turn to the NGO perspective as expressed in the HALO Trust's annual report. Five of the largest mine clearance NGOs—Danish Church Aid, the Danish Demining Group, Handicap International France, Norwegian Peoples Aid and the HALO Trust—met as a group that was initially called the NGO Task Force. In August this year, they reformed into a group called the NGO Perspective on the Debris of War. The group agreed to the following statement:
	"Victims and communities affected by the debris of war deserve better support than they are currently getting from the mine action community. The mine problem is finite, straightforward and relatively simple to solve. However, mine action processes are becoming over-complicated and, as a consequence, unjustifiably expensive.
	We, five experienced NGO mine action operators, are concerned that under the current circumstances the obligations of the Ottawa Treaty cannot be met."
	What are the implications of that? Although donor funding for mine clearance is increasing—we all welcome that—it appears that there may not be the corresponding drop in casualties. At some point, donors such as DFID will say, "What's the point? We're going to walk away from these escalating costs," and the clearance agencies will have to abandon numerous areas of mine clearance for mine-affected communities.
	HALO believes that donors, including the UK,
	"should now review their funding priorities and decide what elements of 'Mine Action' really contribute to casualty reduction and the relief of poverty. The review should not be done by the established circle of mine action consultants who have advised on policies during the past 10 years—as they are likely to justify their previous advice. HALO is convinced that there are . . . hundreds of millions of dollars being spent that have little or nothing to do with casualty reduction or the relief of poverty. A whole 'Mine Action' industry"—
	one might even say circus—
	is feasting off international donor funding—an almost continual stream of conferences, consultants, publications, studios, re-writes, IT systems",
	and so on. If we want Afghans, Cambodians and Angolans to live without a constant threat of landmines over the next few years, we need to switch funding from so-called "mine action", which is peripheral, to actual mine clearance.
	I used the HALO Trust as an example, but other NGOs could be so used. UN mine action costs UK taxpayers and others a great deal of money, which should be better spent, but mine action is itself only one among many issues. I very much hope to hear the Minister say that the Government will hold the UN to account and will review the funding for mine action and other humanitarian work.

Tony Colman: It is interesting to follow the advocacy of the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on behalf of the HALO Trust. Having accompanied him to Angola when we were both members of the International Development Committee, I heard him take up those charges with the United Nations. I hope that the Minister may want to take the matter further, because it is an extraordinary situation.
	I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on the United Nations and a member of the United Nations Association.
	At 11.30 on this Remembrance day, a ceremony took place at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, as it does every year, to remember those who have died in the service of the United Nations. Last year, that service was led by Sergio Vieira de Mello. This year, of course, we mourned his sad death, and also that of Fiona Watson, who was formerly a researcher in the international section of the Library, in that terrible explosion on 19 August. That brings home to us the importance of having this debate today.
	Last week, I was honoured to chair the meeting for the Ralph Bunche memorial lecture, celebrating the 100 years since the birth of Ralph Bunche, who was perhaps a predecessor to Mr. Vieira de Mello, covering the years from 1945 to 1971, when he died. It was a very inspiring lecture, given by Sir Brian Urquhart, whose biography of Ralph Bunche I recommend. It is well worth reading, and I shall be delivering it back to the House of Commons Library soon. The meeting was full—standing room only—with ambassadors, members of the diplomatic corps, Members of this House and the other place, and members of the public attending. That demonstrates the concern, which people are now understanding, that the United Nations is the key game in town—indeed, the only game in town—and that it needs to be supported, talked up and respected.
	A number of hon. Members have referred to the excellent Command Paper—Cm 5898—entitled "The United Kingdom in the United Nations", and I congratulate the Minister on publishing it this September, and, as others have said, on having the second debate on the Floor of the House on this subject within three months, as many of us had advocated.
	Several hon. Members have talked about reform of the Security Council, but I would like to talk about other reforms. I suggest that there are areas into which the UN should have gone but has not yet fully done so, in terms of new specialist agencies. I accept that some might need to be folded within others, but I want to draw to the attention of the House an article in the Financial Times of 10 November, headed "Plan for UN to manage internet 'will be shelved'." The subject is to be discussed at next month's world information summit in Geneva, and I strongly suggest that we do not shelve the proposal. We should get the book out and ensure that the internet comes under the auspices of the United Nations, presumably within the International Telecommunication Union.
	A second area that I would like the Minister to consider is one on which I challenged the Secretary of State for International Development in the House last week: taxation. The under-secretary general for social affairs at the United Nations General Assembly special session for finance and development two weeks ago said that if we were looking at world taxation and accounting systems, they should come within the UN. There should not be an international taxation system that is the same for every country, but the UN should have governance over the mechanisms and processes.
	A third area is migration. It is extraordinary, given the enormous migratory flows around the world—I am talking about economic migrants, not refugees—that there is no basis on which the UN has a locus in that area. There is the International Organisation for Migration, but it is outside the United Nations.
	A fourth area is the World Trade Organisation. We have the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—UNCTAD—but in a sense the WTO was the organisation that got away in 1995. It should have come within UNCTAD at that time, and many of us would like to see greater moves being made to that end.
	There are two areas in which the United Nations has specialist agencies that are in need of reform. The hon. and gallant Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) mentioned the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is based in Montreal. It has 188 member states, meets every two years, and decides what goes on in our airports and aeroplanes, and how airlines use the air. It has a wide range of programmes and sets environmental rules for the world.
	Paragraph 209 of the Command Paper states that the ICAO has developed
	"a universal, effectively mandatory, programme of safety oversight audits."
	At its next meeting, which I believe is in February 2004, I suggest, on behalf of those who have problems living near the approach to Heathrow airport—as we certainly do in Putney—that it could examine the issue of night flights, which needs to be dealt with across the world, and that of noise. I was pleased to see today that Cambridge university and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are developing silent aeroplanes, which seems like a good idea, and considering the issues of pollution and whether a fuel tax might be a good idea.
	The ICAO is largely a closed organisation, where the discussions are not open to the public. It is extremely important that we should continue to have high-level ministerial representation there. We should also ensure that this Parliament has representation at that next meeting, and that NGOs can fully lobby and be involved in decision making in respect of a UN agency that needs reform.
	The next area that should briefly be mentioned is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was referred to by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell). I have a particular interest here—my Nuclear Safeguards Bill eventually became the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000—in terms of UK ratification of the additional protocol to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I am pleased to see in the documentation the fact that there is to be a significantly increased budget in respect of the IAEA's safeguards work. Obviously, all of us are pleased that the efforts that have been made with Iran have borne fruit, as the Iranian Government have accepted coming within the work of the additional protocol. That is a good example of the UN moving forward on a new agenda.
	I would like all weapons of mass destruction to come within an IAEA framework. I am sure that we all agree that it is a great shame that the chemical and biological weapons conventions seem to be stalled, but I suggest that the world will understand if we can advance the cause and move things forward.
	I want to move on to the wider role of reform, which other hon. Members have not mentioned. What is the role of Parliaments in relation to the UN system? I was pleased to discover that, finally, the UN has given observer status to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That is the first time that this has happened. Individual delegates from national Parliaments have been given the right to initiate resolutions and to speak, but plainly not to vote. There is much discussion about whether there should be a parallel Chamber to the UN General Assembly, so that discussions can take place among Parliaments alongside those among Governments. If it is now the norm, as it appears to be, to have IPU meetings alongside the ministerials at the WTO, why not do the same at the UN General Assembly if we are looking to reform the UN and increase its legitimacy?
	Another area is ensuring that the role of civil society is much fuller and more properly looked after. A major piece of work is being done on that, and I urge all Members to encourage their constituents to engage in it, as there is a real sense of disempowerment among many NGOs. That was picked up by the hon. Member for Blaby, who talked about that on the ground, as it were, but it is felt also at the UN in New York and in Geneva.
	The next area was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey)—how do we promote the UN's importance, the hope that the UN gives, the role of the World Federation of United Nations Associations and the UN associations in the UK? I pay tribute to Sir Richard Jolly, chair of the UK United Nations Association, and Malcolm Harper, the chief executive.
	When I was at Cambridge university, I was chair of the UN association, which had some 7,000 members—nearly three quarters of the student population. It was rather larger than the Labour and Conservative clubs. That was in 1963–64. Such involvement among the student community is something that I would like to be revived. However, there is a tremendous network of UNAs out there in each of our constituencies that we need to support. I pay tribute to my own Putney UNA—chairman Dave Crookenden, vice-chair Rob Storey and secretary Jo Stokes. I am very proud to be its vice-president.
	I believe that the United Nations is the one hope for the world. At today's Remembrance day service in Putney, the final prayer ran as follows:
	"Let us pray for the peace of the world . . . and for men and women the world over that they may find justice and freedom and live in security and peace".
	The United Nations is, I believe, the only way forward.

Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who speaks with such authority about the UN and his contribution to the UN association. I agree with him about Fiona Watson's contribution. I hope that the House finds a way of recognising it permanently, as we should recognise the contribution of other servants and, indeed, Members of the House who have gone on to do other things and have lost their lives in the service of this country—or, as in this instance, the service of the international community.
	I am sure that Sir Brian Urquhart will be delighted by the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of his book, and will regret only that he had to borrow it from the library rather than buying it.
	I am not certain that I can logically go as far as the hon. Gentleman and agree that the UN is the only hope for the world, but I do not think anyone could dispute its enormous importance. After all, in September 2002 the President of the United States—a president leading a Republican Administration—found it necessary, amid all the fears about the isolation of the US, to go to the UN and justify his appeal for global support for what it wanted to do in Iraq in terms of Security Council resolutions that already existed. To sweeten the pill, he announced that the US would rejoin UNESCO. That demonstrated that even the United States, the hyperpower referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), needs the support of the entire international community. The UN is the only body that exists for that purpose, and if it did not exist we would have to invent it.
	I do not agree with critics who have tried to make parallels with the League of Nations and have said how ineffective the UN is. Almost every nation in the world—if not every nation—belongs to the UN: even Switzerland, having sat on the sidelines for so long, has now decided to join. It is easy to list the UN's failures, and I shall list some of them shortly, but it is the best—probably the only—body to deal with not just security issues but all the issues of world governance arising from the 12 UN agencies. I am thinking of the World Health Organisation, the international aerospace agreements mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney, and all the other subsidiary bodies.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about the importance of the aspiration and inspiration that the UN must provide. The UN did not give explicit approval for the military operations involved in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Kosovo, but the international community and the powers that had taken action had to return to it to secure authority for the subsequent operations and political developments in those places. It is, however, seriously undermined by its administrative and practical failures as an organisation.
	A week ago, the Financial Times published a report of a serious corruption inquiry involving the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. There is the extraordinary business of charges being made by a senior official in the United Nations office that tackles drugs and crime. That body is involved in a fight to deal with corruption within its own organisation. The report went on to highlight the complaint of Samuel Gonzalez-Ruiz, whom it described as
	"a former head of Mexico's anti-Mafia unit who advises governments on fighting corruption".
	It said that he
	"quit his post last week in protest at what he called 'corruption and mismanagement' in the agency, including 'misappropriation of funds', 'nepotism' and 'traffic of influence . . . In his resignation letter"—
	he said that
	"management ignored repeated reports of wrongdoing by officials, despite having detailed evidence. He charged that whistleblowers were routinely punished and that perpetrators were sheltered by senior management."
	He went on to say:
	"I do not have the stomach to be promoting a fight against organised crime and corruption around the world when I am working in an office that tolerates administrative and in some cases criminal violations".
	That is too often the experience of people on the ground with the United Nations. It is not typical, but it happens much too often for any of us to be comfortable with how the United Nations works.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) referred to his experience of a senior UN official in northern Bosnia being unable to carry out simple functions. While working for Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Secretary of State for Defence and then Foreign Secretary, I visited United Nations operations in Bosnia and elsewhere. As a British soldier, I visited fellow British troops wearing blue berets in Cyprus and saw the administration there. We sometimes see brilliant United Nations officials of all nationalities carrying out their work but there appears to be the most astonishing inconsistency in performance. People are put into post simply because they come from a particular nation that has to have bums on seats—jobs have to be distributed to people from those nations. Frankly, they are a serious let-down to the whole organisation.
	To be fair, I want particularly to commend the efforts of the current Secretary-General to tackle that problem. He is the one who appointed Martti Ahtisaari to report on the consequences of 19 August—the bombing in Baghdad and the wider consequences for the United Nations. If an organisation is prepared to paint as deeply unflattering a picture of the way it works as he does, there is hope that that organisation is becoming significantly more self-critical and will improve. However, we cannot be complacent when Martti Ahtisaari identifies unclear chains of command, flouted guidelines, a lack of accountability and naivety about the security environment. That naivety led to the tragedy on 19 August. Frankly, it is totally unacceptable that an international organisation of the stature of the United Nations working in Baghdad in August 2003 displayed that naivety. It led to that tragedy, with all the consequences for the work of United Nations organisations in Iraq.
	The scale of that disaster, combined with what has happened to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad, is a serious setback to everything that the international community is seeking to achieve in Iraq and a serious setback for the people of Iraq, even if they are hostile to what the occupying powers are doing. One can hardly think of a greater own goal than the combination of those two attacks, not least in the case of the Red Cross, part of whose responsibility is to check on prisoners whom the occupying forces have taken to ensure that they are properly looked after.
	The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, drew our attention to the United Nations Congo operation. I intervened on him. He made the point about the European Union's contribution to those operations. He said that the EU contributed to the operation at the request of the UN. The trouble is our lack of commitment to the UN, as demonstrated by the fact that that request had to be negotiated between the EU and the UN. The EU was not prepared, in effect, to support unconditionally the ongoing operation in the Congo, probably for sound military reasons. No responsible Defence Minister answerable to a Parliament in the EU would have been prepared to commit troops to the UN force as constituted in the Congo.
	We must ask ourselves why we were prepared to allow a UN force to go to the Congo under chapter VI authority if it was ill-equipped to command and control the troops under its command and to deal with them safely to the standards on which we would have insisted had our troops been part of the original operation. We must ask ourselves searching questions. We were asked to contribute to the operation, but we were not prepared to do so. Are we saying that because the force was under the command of an Indian general under chapter VI, and because the troops were from developing countries, it did not matter if the force could not do things properly as it was never going to have the military weight to make a sensible military contribution to addressing the appalling conflict in the Congo? If so, the idea of first and second-class UN operations must be addressed.
	I want to refer to reform and to make some constructive suggestions. We are not talking about the immediate future, but a debate such as this allows us to do some medium to long-term thinking. The UN has been in existence for 50 years and plainly it will develop in strength and importance because there is no alternative. It will be the vehicle, reformed as it will be, that will give us the authority of international law and the international deployment of troops.
	I want to concentrate on security, not least because I know something about it. The three Back-Bench speakers from the Conservative party are all former servicemen and I hope that the House will forgive us for focusing on the security dimension of the UN, which is the most important element. All the relief work is important, but one cannot do that if one does not have a secure environment.
	On the Secretariat and the reform that is taking place to it, Kofi Annan deserves commendation and support and the Government have made it clear in their Command Paper that Kofi Annan has their support. However, I want to contrast what the Government say about the secretariat with what they later say about the reform of the Security Council. It is right that the UN secretariat's abilities and energies need to be harnessed to ensure that all appointments are made on merit. That would appear to be blindingly obvious.
	Until the United Kingdom and every other contributor to the UN is prepared to surrender Buggins's turn when it comes to handing out jobs, we will never have appointment on merit. It is a huge problem, because every single contributor to the UN within every international forum competes for their men and women to have posts within the organisations. Somehow we have to break the cycle, and the UK, as a sizeable nation, should be uniquely placed to take an internationalist outlook on the reform of the UN. We should no longer look at things through the prism of what would appear to be a short-term national interest. Our long-term interests are absolutely bound up with making this organisation as efficient and effective as possible.

Angus Robertson: On the question of Buggins's turn, does the hon. Gentleman concede that following that logic, it would make sense to reform the Security Council so that there would be no need for the UK and the other four permanent members to have a permanent seat and a veto? Does he foresee that as being part of his analysis against Buggins's turn?

Crispin Blunt: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is extending the point too far, beyond the reality of today's world of international relations and security. It is undoubtedly true that the nations with the largest economies make the greatest contribution to world security, and historically those are the countries that have had the veto. There is now a debate about extending permanent membership and whether the nations that will become permanent members will come with a veto. But I am jumping ahead, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I shall deal with the secretariat before considering the Security Council itself.
	I commend what the Government said about initiatives such as targeted training, funding internship programmes, support for graduates—particularly from developing countries—and addressing appraisal systems. One would hope that, if the UN is prepared to be self-critical in the manner of Martti Ahtisaari's report, such self-criticism could be extended to the personnel management of the entire UN. On term limits for senior posts, two four-year terms is usually the sensible limit, but the Government appear to be suggesting that that should be reviewed and the terms made longer. It is plainly in everybody's interests that the UN, even in respect of its most senior posts, should begin to acquire people whose only loyalty is to the UN, so that they do not then return to whichever country they came from. The UN career path should attract the best and brightest of the world's graduates. The UK's best and brightest used to join our own diplomatic service, and the best and brightest of the globe should be attracted to the UN.
	There is a horrifying contrast between the language that the Government used about the secretariat, and that used about reform of the Security Council. The Command Paper states:
	"The United Kingdom remains committed to a Security Council that is representative of the modern world, efficient and transparent."
	I doubt whether we wanted to be committed to one that is representative of the ancient world, inefficient and opaque. On examining the rest of that paragraph, we realise that it actually says very little. That is in sad contrast with what is said about the reforms of the Secretariat; in that regard, lots of specific proposals are made and supported.
	We know that, like the previous Government, this Government want the Security Council to expand. The Prime Minister has put on the record—as have other Ministers and the previous Administration—the difficulties in achieving that, but it is self-evident that the nations that make the greatest contribution to security ought to be permanent members of the Security Council. That plainly means India in the first instance, which not only has a huge population but has made a very significant contribution to UN security operations around the world. It almost certainly means Japan and Germany, given their economic weight, and Brazil. People are wondering whether, if an African country is to join, it will be South Africa or Nigeria, and in some senses that is a difficult call. South Africa has a global reputation and appears to have a rather more accountable and satisfactory Government, yet Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa and is a regional power in its own right. Here, we hit the difficulty of making qualitative judgments between different candidates for permanent membership of the Security Council.
	Are we really proposing to give all those nations a veto? We need to reflect much more on the whole question of the veto. It is worth looking ahead 40 or 50 years, by which time the economy of India might be as large as that of the EU as a whole and the economy of China might, on current projections, be even larger. In those circumstances, the British and French veto may come to look a little odd. We shall have to contemplate the enlargement of the Security Council and a rather more internationalist outlook than we have to date. The world is changing and it will take an awfully long time to secure a satisfactory position for the reform of the UN. We must take a much longer-term view.
	Plainly, there are British interests—as there are French—to protect, but we must examine how the veto has operated and what value it has to the United Kingdom. The fact that we are prepared to consider that issue, which goes beyond the position that any Government have adopted until now, might begin to open up a debate about the future of the UN and the future structure of the Security Council. If we, as a country committed to international security and one that has made and will continue to make a huge contribution, are prepared to acknowledge that such a debate should take place, that does not amount to an abandonment of the British position. It does not necessarily mean abandonment of the veto if what we secure in return is unsatisfactory. However, if we are not prepared to begin to deal with the issue—including Buggins's turn in relation to posts—and face up to how the world will look 30, 40 or 50 years ahead, it is difficult to see which other nations will lead the debate.
	The UK has, because of our history, our heritage and our inheritance of the Commonwealth, a particularly proud record as a contributor to global affairs. We have contributed all around the globe over the past 200 years. We have had special relationships with countries as diverse as New Zealand and Hungary, for example, and we are the second biggest investor in Mexico. The UK has an outlook on the world and a huge amount to contribute to the debate on reform of the UN. I hope that the Government will be prepared to engage imaginatively in that debate and perhaps go slightly further and consider options other than those that might be viewed as the most politically safe back home.

Tony Worthington: I am pleased to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I have never before experienced having three gallant Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition Benches and I think that I shall report it to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—[Interruption.] It is a strange experience.
	Let us not get carried away in congratulating ourselves on having this debate. Other than a debate in Westminster Hall a couple of months ago, this is the first time in 16 years that I can remember having had a debate on the United Nations on the Floor of the House. How many debates have we conducted on the UN over the past 60 years? Would we need more than one hand—or even one finger—to count them? Is this the first?
	We are very poor at dealing with international issues. I congratulate the Minister on this debate and on the annual report, which is a step forward. I recognise what the Foreign Secretary says in the preface—that the report necessarily requires more background and history than subsequent ones will need—but it reads as if it has been edited by a particularly strict primary school head teacher who does not want to frighten the children. Some lively bits have been squeezed out. I shall refer to them in my speech, but we should have been given the whole truth, and not the edited version.
	As well as looking at the reform of the UN and its family of organisations, we should look at how we—as a country, and as people—relate to the UN. We are told repeatedly, and correctly, that the UN is merely the sum of its members. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is not here, but we rely on bodies such as the UNA to keep us abreast of UN activities.
	I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has returned to the Chamber. I can tell him that I was just paying tribute to Putney, and saying that we need to build support for the UN, through Parliament as well as the UNA.
	It is a cliché to say that the world is becoming more globalised but, like many clichés, it is substantially true. More global institutions are being set up to cope with what is going on in the world. In my remarks, I subsume the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation. We should consider ending the strange anomaly that means that we talk separately about the Bretton Woods institutions and the UN organisations. They belong together, and we should see them as our collective response to common problems.
	Our scrutiny of the vast family of organisations in the UN is inadequate. The debate has been valuable, as it has allowed the House to hear from people with specialised perspectives. For instance, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) displayed specialist knowledge of UN mines operations. We must use expertise such as that.
	I am pleased that the public are waking up to these matters, and demanding that we perform better in matters such as debt and world trade. About two years ago, the Trade Justice Movement campaign mounted the biggest lobby that this House has ever experienced. The House must recognise the importance of such events, or risk being seen to be irrelevant.
	It is sad that so little time in the Chamber is devoted to international affairs. I applaud the fact that we now have Westminster Hall, and consider it a great step forward, but we must use this Chamber more effectively as well. Remarkably, for all the discussion about the reform of Parliament, little has been said about how we can relate better to the UN and its very substantial son and daughter bodies.
	It seems extraordinary that nothing requires Ministers from the Department for International Development to appear in the House of Commons from one year's end to the next, apart from departmental Question Times. We tried to insert a requirement in the International Development Act 2002 for an annual DFID debate. Although the legislation was the first for decades, we failed to get that commitment. Yet DFID is important, because it is the Department that relates to many of the UN organisations.
	Our relationship with UN organisations can have strange consequences. Are we reacting satisfactorily? Like other hon. Members, I shall use personal examples to show how that question has struck me.
	To his credit, my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech that there was appalling genocide in Rwanda nearly 10 years ago, when about 1 million people were slaughtered. How did the House respond? House of Commons activity consisted of a few parliamentary questions, and two Adjournment debates that I was lucky enough to obtain by lottery. Have hon. Members considered the propriety of debating—or not debating—genocide by lottery? Could it happen again? Yes, it could. There was no response on that matter from either Front Bench, and the UN Security Council, with our active involvement, was strenuously finding a way to do nothing about Rwanda while the slaughter continued. If anyone doubts that, they should read the books of Linda Melvern and Fergal Keane. We cannot be satisfied that our response to an international event of that magnitude was to do nothing.
	We have done nothing in other places in the world. I am one of the few Members to have visited Liberia. I went there years ago and the place horrified me. The problems went on and on and nothing happened; we did nothing about Liberia.
	It is not just during catastrophes such as the one in Rwanda when we should exert more influence at the UN. Although the annual report is a valuable step forward, there has been a general failure to report. Many highly significant issues remain—for example, the International Criminal Court, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). Labour Members were proud when, just before the last general election, we passed the International Criminal Court Act 2001. At last there was a standing court that would bring the most evil men in the world to justice. We ratified the UN treaty and, at almost record speed, the necessary 60 nations were signed up to bring the ICC into existence.
	The court is working on its first cases but, as the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale said, it is under siege from the United States, which not only does not want to sign up to the ICC but is actively trying to bring it down by bribing and bullying smaller states. We have mounted less than rigorous opposition to such acts. We have been accused, whether fairly or unfairly, of accommodating the United States in that respect. The British Government have not uttered a word; no statement has been made.
	I said earlier that a primary school head teacher seemed to have taken everything of interest out of the annual report. There are about three pages dealing with various special courts—the Khmer Rouge tribunals, the international tribunal on Rwanda and so on—with only three lines about the International Criminal Court. There is no reference whatever to the fact that there was a major row in the UN Security Council about the ICC and bilateral treaties. We must have a better mechanism for reporting back on what our Government are doing. The annual report provides that to some extent, but we need to find out what is happening in each of the UN organisations, with a report from our representatives.
	I belong to Parliamentarians for Global Action, which recently celebrated its 25th birthday. The organisation campaigned vigorously for the ICC with—I am delighted to say—the support of the Foreign Office, which provided funding so that, as the UN Security Council said, the PGA was a key factor in getting people involved. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, I get my information about what is happening at the ICC from Parliamentarians for Global Action, which is based in New York, rather than from anything that goes on in this place. There must be accountability to the House.
	There is a general trend towards the establishment of such parliamentary organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney and I also belong to the Parliamentary Network of the World Bank. The World Bank recognised that it could not go on being isolated. It could not go on simply relating to Governments; it had to relate to parliamentarians. One of things that we are doing is setting up a parliamentary implementation watch, whereby we report back on various World Bank and other international conference decisions, so that parliamentarians around the world know what is happening. At the moment, it is very difficult to know about such things.
	Let me give another example of the international bodies that many hon. Members may remember. I have always had a particular interest in population, development and reproductive health, so I belong to the all-party group on that subject and to the European group, and so on. The annual report states that the UNFPA—the United Nations Population Fund, which is the body to which we in Europe relate—
	"has been an effective and outspoken champion for reproductive health and rights, but has been the victim of attacks and unsubstantiated allegations from religious conservative groups who take a different view on these issues."
	Let me put that into English. The religious conservative group that has been attacking the UNFPA is the US Government.
	The US Government withdrew all their funding from the UNFPA, withdrawing services to hundreds of thousands of people around the world. To counteract that, the EU and the British Government stepped in to ensure that the UNFPA had the same funds as it would have done if the US had contributed. I hope that those points will be made in future annual reports, because we want to know about them. We want to know not just what the organisations were set up to do, but what the areas of contention are.
	Many parliamentarians in the House and in other Parliaments are working together, for example, to set up an e-Parliament. I do not know whether that will come to anything, but it is intended to use the resources of global technology to keep parliamentarians in touch. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney visited Albania with the parliamentary network and parliamentarians from other countries to see how the poverty reduction strategies were working there.

Crispin Blunt: A junket and a half.

Tony Worthington: That is the first time that the words "junket" and "Albania" have been heard together, but I had better move on.
	Those joint enterprises are very valuable in bringing together the developing world and the developed world to subject the international organisations to scrutiny. As I said earlier, there is a real danger that, unless we as hon. Members sharpen up our act in relating to international matters, our constituents will ignore us. There is no doubt in my mind that various major NGOs in this country have more influence on Governments and international organisations than we have as parliamentarians, because we tend to ignore such issues or deal with them very badly.
	Another issue that the Minister mentioned, which I hope will be explored thoroughly in talks about reforms, is conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction. There are an enormous number of low-level conflicts around the world that may explode into much more serious conflicts, in relation to which we must do preventive work. After conflict, we have the sheer difficulty of making sure that our intervention is successful. To see how not to do it, we need only look at what happened to the Americans—the most powerful nation in the world—in the person of General Jay Garner. That is the covered-up and never-talked-about bit of the Iraq story nowadays. The person who was put in charge of Iraq's reconstruction, his team and his philosophy had to be replaced within about a month because their approach was not working. It is complicated, difficult, dangerous work, which requires much more than armies and police; it requires people with expertise in legal services, education and water provision, and it needs to be done in a sensitive and aware way.
	I am pleased that, in this country, we now have an NGO—Peaceworkers UK—working on the issue, because until its involvement, that work did not have a focus. I am delighted that the Minister will meet a delegation of MPs and Peaceworkers UK during the next few weeks to see whether our response can be more coherent. I use the word "coherent" not in a critical sense; it is inevitable that when things are done in a higgledy-piggledy way—through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the EU, the UN or the Department for International Development—we neglect the overall picture, which is to make sure that we have a balanced, skilled team that we can send out to such situations. Peaceworkers UK is raising in an intelligent way the issue of how we can respond to the emergencies that spring up.
	To conclude, let me point out that, as has happened in this debate, when people talk about the United Nations they tend to have in their minds political bodies such as the General Assembly and the Security Council. Unfortunately, as tends to happen all the time, people concentrate on the couple of pages at the beginning of the document about the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, and not the 30 pages about the family of the UN. We do not realise the sheer skill involved. I accept the criticisms, too, but sometimes we must be grateful that an organisation such as the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs exists, organises Governments, UN organisations and NGOs when sometimes millions of people can be in trouble, and finds the resources to deal with that. We also need to consider the World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation, to which we turned when severe acute respiratory syndrome looked like being a huge problem, UNICEF and so on.
	The United Nations Development Programme has had some criticism today, which may be justified, but it is generally very serious about political capacity building and is worthy of esteem. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney and his colleagues would have recently seen the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Palestine, which has been looking after Palestinian refugees for as long as the UN has existed.
	We tend to ignore all of those organisations and we do not esteem them enough. I hope that the annual debate will continue to take place, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that we need more than that. We need to look at how we organise ourselves, perhaps through the Select Committee structure—the Foreign Affairs Committee cannot cope with global issues on its own—and at how we relate to those organisations in a much more sensible way than we do at present.

Angus Robertson: I am in a slightly curious position because I have taken part in three debates today during which I have found myself almost entirely in agreement with almost every word that has been spoken by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is even more extraordinary that I cannot disagree with a single word of a contribution made by a Scottish Labour Member—the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). I am enjoying today's proceedings greatly and I underscore the fact that I would certainly sign up to much of what he said. I apologise to hon. Members that I was unable to be here for much of the early part of the debate, but I was firefighting on fishing and whisky, which are important to my constituency. I shall be brief because I have to attend other meetings on those issues.
	Despite those important meetings, I was especially keen to participate in the debate for two reasons. First, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru are long-standing supporters of the United Nations. They support multilateralism and a forum in which the different nations of the world may meet and work under international law. Given the peroration of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), in which he described the new and emerging nations that are queuing up to join the UN, he be would be disappointed if I did not again put on record my wish that Scotland will take its rightful place, as a normal country, as a member of the United Nations in due time.
	My second reason for wanting to speak is because I worked as a diplomatic correspondent before I became a Member of Parliament. I was based in Vienna for seven years and as a member of the United Nations Correspondents Association, I covered the various organisational parts of the UN that are based in that city—it is the third United Nations headquarters. I should put it on record that I worked for the United Nations as a trainer of its staff in Vienna, so I have a personal and political interest in its work.
	I, too, put on record my appreciation of the staff of the United Nations and the many people who have worked on its behalf, not least servicemen and women who have laid down their lives. I fully endorse the suggestion of a permanent memorial in the House to Fiona Watson.
	I shall touch on three points, the first of which is reform. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) gave us a long list of sensible proposals, which I would support. The hon. and gallant Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) touched on staffing, which can be, euphemistically speaking, occasionally problematic. Every hon. Member knows that there are staffing issues in the United Nations and I hope that the Government will examine that closely. The extremity of the need to ensure that people of specific nationalities secure posts regardless of their alleged talents undermines the United Nations, so that needs reform. Serious questions are often asked about the way in which the budget of the United Nations is managed, so the Government should examine that closely.
	Many hon. Members have talked about reform of the United Nations Security Council, as did I in an intervention. It is interesting to contrast the UK Government's support for a Security Council of 24 countries—that is not an unreasonable number of members—with their opposition to a European Commission of 25 members, which is roughly the same size. They say that such a Commission would be unworkable, but I think that both a Security Council with 24 members and a Commission with 25 members would be manageable.
	The Minister said that the question that I asked about the inequality of permanent member states was a good debating point. If the Governments of other countries such as Germany and Japan raised the point, it would be more than a debating point because it would be central to their worries about reform of the UN Security Council. We need proposals on reforming that structure so that everyone feels that they have an equal say and are of equal standing within the UN Security Council.

Bill Rammell: For the information of the House, is the hon. Gentleman advocating that there should be 10 permanent members of the Select Committee, all with a veto?

Angus Robertson: No is the simple answer. I believe that serious consideration should be given to getting rid of the veto altogether. Either we should trust the UN system or put in what some people would regard as safeguards. There is a strong precedent in the approach taken by both the Conservative and Labour parties to vetoes in the European Union. Margaret Thatcher, of course, was responsible for getting rid of the largest single number of vetoes in the history of the EU, and the Labour Government now want to get rid of even more. A precedent on getting rid of vetoes has therefore been set by the two largest UK parties in the House, and I believe that we should consider seriously the prospect of getting rid of the veto in the UN Security Council. Either we believe wholeheartedly in the UN system or we do not. That does not mean that there are not associated problems, but we should look at the possibility of getting rid of the veto.
	Secondly, we need to respect the UN institutions and their decision-making processes. I was disappointed by the way in which both the UK and US Governments dealt with Iraq. Having mandated UN arms inspectors to carry out a job, we went over their heads and did not let them finish their work, despite the fact that they were asking for more time. We then got involved in unilateral military action without a specific UN mandate. Like everybody else, I welcome the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq, but I am less happy about how that was achieved. In future, I hope that the UK Government and every other member state of the UN will pursue military action only when they have gone the full distance to secure a mandate from the UN Security Council.
	Thirdly, I want to put on record my appreciation of a frequently overlooked aspect of peacekeeping and peacemaking: the contribution made by small countries. Hon. Members have rightly praised the role of countries such as India that have made significant peacekeeping contributions. However, some peacekeeping missions would not have worked without the contribution of countries such as Ireland or Austria—small, neutral or non-aligned European states that have made a significant contribution in places such as Cyprus, the Lebanon and elsewhere. In UN operations in many small and medium-sized countries, their military have had the moral authority and capability to deliver on the ground.
	I am particularly concerned, therefore, about reports about the amalgamation or disbandment of Scottish military regiments. I sincerely hope that when the Ministry of Defence outlines its plans on the future of the UK military it does not proceed with such plans, as they would undermine the UK's ability to deploy forces in UN missions. The Scottish National party is strongly in favour of a well-funded, capable Scottish military that can take part in UN-mandated missions. Anything that would undermine the integrity of the Scottish regimental structure concerns me greatly.
	In conclusion, I am glad that the Minister said that the Government support strongly the strategic review on reform of the UN. We need to look at the UN system, but we should also look at the Bretton Woods institutions. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie raised the problems associated with the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank. Unfortunately, that PR battle has been lost, and many people who are sceptical about globalisation hold those institutions in contempt. We need to ensure the integrity of the entire international decision-making and representative system so that we can bring the world community together and advance as one world.
	I firmly support a multilateral route, not a unilateral one. The United Nations is the hope for the world, and Kofi Annan is well placed as one of the most able Secretaries-General for a long time to help to pursue that agenda. I firmly support it, and I hope that the Government will too.

Bill Rammell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate.
	At the start of the debate, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) commented on attendance. We have had an exceedingly good debate, which has been genuinely—I am not saying this merely to curry favour—well informed by a significant number of hon. Members. In the short time that is available—I have an hour and a half, but I assure the House that I do not intend to use it—I wish to respond to some of the points that have been made.
	The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who speaks today from the Conservative Front Bench, underlined his strong support for the United Nations and agreed with the Government that strong supporters of the UN should be strong advocates of change and reform. Interestingly, he pointed out that we have moved from a cold war situation in which there was, to some extent, an equal balance of forces in the world to a situation in which, to use his words, we live with one hyperpower. His point was that, whatever view we take of that situation, it is a reality that we must face up to. He rightly argued that the UN must recognise the position of the United States, which should be similarly encouraged to act through the UN. I strongly agree with him on that point.
	The hon. Gentleman also endorsed the arguments for expansion of the Security Council, and pressed me with regard to the veto. A number of hon. Members referred to the same issue, so it is important for me to make it clear that the Government support an increase in permanent membership of the Security Council and the inclusion of a further five permanent members. Clearly, the question of the veto will have to be considered in respect of those new permanent members. There would be a risk of increasing gridlock in decision making if all 10 permanent members had a veto. In those circumstances, there are key questions that all of us will have to face. Would 10 vetoes help the UN to grasp and tackle the key issues that it and the international community face or would they risk marginalising the UN? Would the wider membership want an increase in the number of vetoes? Is it realistic to expect the five current permanent members to give up their vetoes? I shall return to that issue later, but either way, any change will require the support of two thirds of the whole membership, including the five current permanent members.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised a question that has been a constant refrain from the Opposition Front Bench in recent months—why the UK Government have not tabled at the Security Council a resolution on the current appalling circumstances in Zimbabwe. I refer him to what took place in March at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. A resolution rightly condemning human rights abuses in Zimbabwe was tabled, but even on such a tightly defined issue a blocking majority, including a significant number of members of the existing Security Council, opposed the resolution. The idea that we would table a resolution in the full knowledge that it would probably be defeated would serve merely to reinforce Robert Mugabe's position and entrench him in it.

Crispin Blunt: On human rights and resolutions in Geneva, does the Minister accept that it is not only in respect of Zimbabwe that there is cause for concern? In 1997, the Government inherited a position in which resolutions about China's abuse of human rights were regularly carried in Geneva with British support while we were negotiating the handover of Hong Kong. After 1997, under the Labour Government, such resolutions did not attract British support. The Government's rhetoric about human rights is very strong, but it is entirely legitimate for the Opposition to seek action rather than merely rhetoric.

Bill Rammell: I agree, but although I want action, I do not want to see a resolution that makes us feel awfully good about ourselves, but whose rejection in the Security Council simply serves to reinforce and entrench Robert Mugabe in the position that he and his regime currently hold. The situation is very serious and all of us should focus on how we can tackle it. Some of the efforts that we are currently making, especially to urge others in the region to take a lead on the issue, are as important as anything that we can do in terms of passing resolutions or making proposals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), in a powerful contribution, expressed her shock about the events of 19 August and the fact that the United Nations had actually been attacked and vilified in that way. Whatever view people have of the conflict in Iraq, the experience of people and organisations seeking out the United Nations and its representatives to attack and kill them is extraordinarily difficult to comprehend. It shocks and concerns all of us.
	As many hon. Members did, my hon. Friend also rightly sought to underline the need to seek agreement on the criteria for international intervention in a sovereign state's affairs. She also paid moving tribute to the late Sergio Vieira de Mello. She then argued for the need to engage younger people in our debates on international affairs and the United Nations. As I attend meetings around the country on UN issues, it strikes me that they are full of people from an older generation—I am choosing my words carefully—who have the post-war experience of the importance of the UN, but too often there are too few younger people with a similar understanding and commitment. We all have a responsibility to do everything in our power to raise awareness and improve education on those issues.
	The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) rightly paid tribute to UN staff who place themselves in danger in performing their everyday activities. He also rightly drew attention to the fact that as the UN has expanded the structures have failed to keep up with the increase in size; that is an important point. He underlined the need for a clear framework for intervention.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the International Criminal Court. He said that the UK Government were assisting bilateral immunity agreements in contravention of the ICC statute and that that was splitting from the EU position. That accusation is completely without foundation. We have made it clear that we believe that bilateral non-surrender agreements are allowed under the existing ICC statutes, provided that they follow the framework set out in the EU guiding principles and are consistent with the language of article 16 of the Rome statute. We have done nothing to contradict that position and we have made it clear that we will not sign a bilateral non-surrender agreement that does not conform with those principles. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that shows that we are acting otherwise, I would welcome it if he put it forward.

Tony Worthington: Does that mean that discussions with the United States about a bilateral treaty are not ongoing?

Bill Rammell: We have had one discussion with the US on that issue, in which we made it clear that any agreement would have to be consistent with the EU guiding principles. No further discussions have taken place and we await a response from the United States. It is important to debate such issues on the facts, not what some people believe the facts to be.
	The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale made a point about UN resources needing to be commensurate with UN tasks. I have some words of caution on that point. The UK is the fourth largest contributor to the UN—£600 million—but the hon. Gentleman advocated, by implication, a significant increase in resources for the UN budget. I could not advocate that until the UN has reformed the way that it works. Simply demanding more resources for the UN is not the best way to achieve the efficiencies and prioritisation that we need.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), in a telling contribution, rightly highlighted some of the arguable failings of the UN in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere, and the failure of the UN to enforce certain resolutions. He was right to highlight the key role of the Secretary-General and underlined the fact that he is in many senses one of the most astute and well-informed critics of the way that the UN currently works.
	The hon. and gallant Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) made a well-informed contribution to the debate based on his previous activities and work in UN operations. He underlined the importance of debt relief and the arguments for reform of the World Trade Organisation. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to give developing countries access to world markets: the Government have strongly advocated that, and we will continue to do so.
	On the financing of the United Nations, it is important to be clear that the amount that a member state pays is based on its national income or capacity to pay. Bluntly, that means that richer states pay more and poorer states pay less. We pay about 5.5 per cent. of the UN budget. That methodology is fixed until 2006, so there is no prospect of changing it before then. It is worth stating for the record, however, that we believe that the current arrangements are broadly equitable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) spoke knowledgeably about the way in which the UN works in the light of his experience of working with, visiting and observing it in New York. He pointed out that if it is to remain relevant and to survive, it needs to change, reform and adapt; and he highlighted the importance of its focusing on key issues such as civil wars and threats from international terrorism.
	My hon. Friend referred to expanding not only the permanent membership, but the non-permanent membership, of the Security Council. Perhaps I did not articulate the Government's position clearly enough. We advocate not only five new permanent members, but five new non-permanent members. With regard to the non-permanent members, however, we need to debate within the UN and the international community the need for a firmer set of criteria to determine which nations take on non-permanent membership. Too often, such decisions are based on a regional Buggins's turn. As for my hon. Friend's comments about representation on behalf of Africa, we agree with him that that is important.
	The hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to the importance of the Ottawa convention, of which the Government have been an exceedingly strong supporter. As regards mine action, I will give him a response now, but I am happy to talk to him about those issues at a later stage. The Government are generally satisfied with the work of the United Nations Mine Action Service—UNMAS—and it is our chosen partner for global mine action co-ordination. We believe that it does a good job in assessing projects and deciding where funding should go—particularly in the case of Sudan. DFID's voluntary contribution is £4.7 million; obviously, we work with UNMAS to seek value for money. I shall happily take that discussion further with the hon. Gentleman.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made an important contribution as chair of the all-party group on the United Nations. I pay tribute to the work that he and his colleagues undertake on this issue: such work has never been more timely and important. He rightly drew attention to the thoughts that we should all have about Sergio Vieira de Mello and about Fiona Watson, who worked in this House.
	On my hon. Friend's suggestion that new specialist agencies are needed, I offer a word of caution. I am not convinced, for example, that the plan to manage and regulate the internet through the United Nations is achievable, or even desirable. If we cannot achieve consensus on many of the key international issues that we face, the idea that we would be able to do so in relation to regulating the internet is challenging, to say the least.

Tony Colman: Does the Minister accept that the current system of regulation through a private company based in California is not an acceptable way forward?

Bill Rammell: That just underlines how difficult it is to resolve this issue. If the UN is to work, and to be seen to be credible, it needs realistic and tangible mandates. If we seek to resolve every issue in the world through the UN, however detached those issues are from the fundamental issues, I am not sure how much that would advance its cause.
	My hon. Friend rightly underlined the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. An example that demonstrates that importance is the work that has recently been done to bring together the European Union and the international community through the UN in Iran. I also strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the role of Parliaments in relation to the UN system. Like him, I welcome the observer status that has been given to the Inter-Parliamentary Union; we need to do more to engage parliamentarians in this way. I wholly agree, too, with what he said about the United Nations Association, which is a good organisation and a force for good in all our communities.
	The hon. Member for Reigate—[Hon. Members: "And gallant".] The hon. and gallant Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) clearly articulated his support for the United Nations and for the fact that it is crucial to the resolution of many of the international challenges that we face. He also rightly argued that the UN is seriously undermined by its administrative and bureaucratic failures; we should not resile from articulating that point. He pressed us on the veto, which was mentioned by many hon. Members. We are not arguing that we should give up our possession of the veto. We continue to earn the use of it through our responsible use of our position on the Security Council. Our economic weight, our financial contribution and our contribution to peacekeeping and other UN missions continue to justify our permanent membership and possession of the veto. Nevertheless, the UK Government and other permanent members of the Security Council should use the veto with restraint, and in accordance with the principles of the charter. Whenever this issue is debated, people are shocked to discover that we have not used our veto since 1989. I think that that underlines the responsibility and restraint with which we have used that power.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) made a telling contribution based on his own significant experience of these issues. I was not a Member of the House in 1994, but the fact that there were only two Adjournment debates on the subject of Rwanda at that time, given the shocking and appalling horrors that were taking place there, underlines yet again the fact that the House and all of us in the international community ducked that issue. I strongly believe that we need to focus on the criteria for humanitarian intervention, because we cannot allow the international community to walk by and ignore a situation like that again.
	I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Moray is still with us, despite the pressing needs of the whisky industry.

Angus Robertson: This is serious.

Bill Rammell: Of course it is, and I welcome the contribution that the hon. Gentleman made to the debate, the strong support that he gave to multilateral action at the UN, and the detailed knowledge of the UN that he displayed, given his previous working experience. I was pleased to be able to pin him down on one issue, which was that he was advocating the giving up of the veto by the current permanent members of the Security Council. I reiterate a point that I made in response to an earlier intervention that he made, which was that if we look back to the founding of the United Nations, we remember that we learned from the League of Nations the lesson that if key significant international players did not possess the veto, there would be a real danger of their walking away from those international structures. That issue needs to be taken on board.
	We have had an exceedingly important debate, and it has struck me throughout our discussions that there is a significant degree of consensus on these issues. All of us, in our various ways, are committed to the United Nations. We believe that it is a force for good in the world, but we also believe that it needs to change and reform in response to changing international circumstances. Crucially, it must face up to the key international challenges that the international community faces. If it does so—I believe that it will—we shall see it continue to develop and prosper, and to help us to build the kind of secure future throughout the world that we all want to see.

Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FISHERIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Ann Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw to the House's attention the deep concern felt by members of the United Kingdom fishing industry. It should be said right at the outset of the debate that the so-called demise of cod stocks in the British sector is a clever way to disguise the implementation of European treaty obligations ratified by this Parliament and has little or nothing to do with conservation, which the Government always give as the excuse.
	Eleven years ago in a speech given in Shetland, a senior representative of the European Commission, Ruth Albuquerque, warned the fishing industry that the way forward envisaged by the Commission for restructuring the industry would involve thousands of fishermen losing their jobs. That is indeed what happened, but we have to examine why, as at that time fish stocks were very healthy indeed. How could she predict with such confidence that so many jobs would be lost in the industry? The answer has everything to do with the Iberian expansion of the European Economic Community in January 1986.
	A year ago, Struan Stevenson, Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries, stated categorically that the draconian proposals that are now a reality had nothing to do with conservation. He also said that they were part of a European federalist agenda to hand over the bulk of European fishing to Spain. The European Commission will exploit scientific recommendations to close down the British white fish sector as a golden opportunity to help it to meet its target capacity cuts in one fell swoop. Spain, which has the largest fleet, would therefore dominate the EU's fishing industry.
	Last month, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler, stated that as Spain and Portugal have been fully integrated in the common fisheries policy, all rules that could have been considered discriminatory have been abolished, and from now on EU measures will apply equitably to all member states.
	On 20 October, the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on the European Council and I was delighted to hear him, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) at column 389, clearly confirm that EU fisheries law was the basis on which the UK acceded to the EEC in 1973. That means the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination.
	Furthermore, so that the Minister is aware of this if he is not already, the purpose of the EU fisheries management plan is to balance the EU resource, which includes the decreasing third-country agreements, to the EU fishing capacity without increasing fishing effort. That is as a result and as part of the Spanish treaty of accession. As other nations join and continue to join the EU, which have fishing capacity rather than fishing resource, how does the Minister expect the fundamental equation to be balanced?
	The answer, I suggest, is very simple. Something has to be lost, and that something is the northern EU fleet, which is comprised mainly of the British fishing fleet. I hope the Minister has been following the extracts printed by the Daily Mail of the excellent new book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, "The Great Deception", which is to be published later this month. The Minister will note that the original EEC members suddenly agreed the principle of equal access to Community waters only hours before the UK formally lodged its application for membership and only after successfully stitching up the common agricultural policy against British interests.

Angus Robertson: Is the hon. Lady aware that civil service documents released under the 30-year rule not only support her case, but state in detail that the UK Government maintained that the Scottish fishing industry and those in it were expendable?

Ann Winterton: I shall be using precisely that word shortly. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened. I understand that the debate can go on for longer than we expected, and that we have the evening before us to deal with some of the issues that are so important in his part of the world.
	What I have described was the start of a process that would lead to the eventual and deliberate destruction of our fishing industry as foreign boats invaded our traditional fishing grounds. Thanks to the rules of the father of the European Union, Jean Monnet, there was no way in which we could opt out, as the principle of equal access had been agreed before the United Kingdom joined what was then the European Economic Community. The civil service memorandum that I mentioned revealed that the then Conservative Prime Minister's team were aware of the dangers, but believed that they could not afford to waste their limited negotiating capital on resisting. Their chosen policy was to avoid the subject of Britain's fisheries as much as possible, and to accept secretly that in the wider interest fishermen must be regarded as expendable.
	From that moment, what the extracts in the Daily Mail describe as deliberate deception began. Monnet had succeeded in infecting Britain with his brand of devious and dishonest politics. It may be said that there is nothing new in that, as we know only too well today. Before the Government blame the Conservative Government of the day for the present situation, let us not forget that it was a Labour Administration who, on 1 January 1977, handed the European Union our 12-to-200-mile median line fishing zone. The Fishery Limits Act 1976 created the zone, and immediately handed competence for fisheries to the EEC. Since then each successive Parliament has been to blame, and responsibility rests with this Parliament today.
	Let me remind the Minister of a letter sent by his Department, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to a Shetland skipper, Mr. Magnus Stewart, who—like so many others—has had to leave fishing prematurely as a direct result of the throttling regulations introduced to achieve full integration of fishing policy. It stated:
	"In domestic Law, the United Kingdom Parliament is indeed still Sovereign, and could repeal all or parts of the 1972 European Communities Act, through which legislation is given effect in the United Kingdom".
	I hope the phrase "still sovereign" does not indicate that the Government plan to reduce the competency of Parliament further.
	I was heartened recently to receive a written answer from the Minister for Europe stating that the United Kingdom would honour its international treaty obligations until such time as Parliament decided to repeal the Acts that give effect to them. It is not just Parliament's power to repeal Acts that is important in this regard, because Parliament can also amend Acts. It has done so on numerous occasions, an example being the European Communities Act 1972 itself.
	The crux of this environmental and social disaster rests entirely with the Government and indeed the Minister, who continually bases his case on "sound science". What science? The quota system introduced in 1983 was supposed to have been introduced for conservation reasons, but we now know that it was intended to be used as the tool of integration. It was and still is a destructive measure creating huge discards of mature fish. We are told by the scientists that there are few cod stocks in our seas at present, yet fishermen are still catching cod. What are they supposed to do with them—dump them over the side dead, or land them illegally? As the so-called sound science says that there is little or no cod, perhaps fishermen should deposit all the cod they catch over quota at the Minister's door, so that we can see how much there is; it is usually dumped unseen back into the sea to pollute it.
	It is not surprising that scientists think that there are no cod when they use outdated modelling methods, testing in the same marine locations each year with antiquated and obsolete fishing gear, but that is all part of the game. As everyone knows, climate change has altered the characteristics of all marine species, with fish stocks continually moving. How convenient it is to use the so-called demise of cod to bring about, in the Monnet fashion, the extermination of another fine British industry. The No. 10 strategy unit never started with a completely clean sheet but was given orders to work within the common fisheries policy. I pose the question again: who gave those instructions in Downing street?
	The Minister had a letter printed in Fishing News on 31 October defending the scientists. How successful have International Council for the Exploration of the Sea scientists been since they set themselves up 100 years ago to be the experts in managing the areas outside the territorial waters in the north Atlantic? They have failed miserably.
	The proof is to be found in the Faroe Islands, which, since 1948, has been a self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark. The advice of ICES brought the Faroese people close to bankruptcy, but seven years ago they saw the light. The people of the Faroe Islands ignored the advice of ICES and introduced the exact opposite policy on fishing. They fished down their stock to match the then available food source. They then set about rebuilding the food source, and the stock was increased to match the increased food supply. As a result, they no longer face bankruptcy. They have built a thriving fishing and fish processing industry, with all the associated infrastructure and employment, and are experiencing a shortage of skilled labour because of the success of their fishing policy.
	The recommendations of ICES are the exact opposite of that successful policy: fish down the food source and stop fishing for white fish to increase the mature stock, which in turn require additional food source that has been destroyed. It is rather like hon. Members saying that the strangers cafeteria has insufficient food to satisfy present demand, but that we shall keep it open to the general public. The result would be that we either all starved together or went elsewhere. People can move elsewhere and, as fish recognise no boundaries, that is exactly what they do: they go where the food source is strong.
	I was delighted that, at Prime Minister's questions, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked about industrial fishing that destroys the food source. Back came to reply:
	"we must convince the others"—
	other European Union member states—
	"so that we get a majority behind our position at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 636.]
	The Prime Minister hopes that we can do just that. His position is the same as that of the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for the Environment, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who was one of the most experienced Fisheries Ministers, holding that role both in opposition and in government. He told us year after year in debates in the Chamber of his concerns about industrial fishing. Unfortunately, all he succeeded in achieving was a temporary closure around the Isle of May in the firth of Forth, which was introduced in order to benefit bird life, so fishermen again were not helped by the measure. There is no hope that the UK can do anything with just 10 votes and the Prime Minister knows it.
	This year's sand eel fishery was a disaster, mainly made up of sand eel fry, which are the size of matchsticks, and not the full-grown sand eels that are normally devoured by cod. They no longer exist, yet sand eel quotas have never fully been caught. Even cookery programmes on the television suggest that we should buy not wild cod, but farmed cod. That makes the situation far worse, as the wild cod's food is taken to feed the farmed cod, which need eight times more food in weight than wild cod. What utter madness.
	The supposedly sound scientific advice is fatally flawed, but flawed for a good reason. It is used as a disguise to complete the integration process and comply with the treaties that the Government believe must be upheld for the wider benefits of our membership of the European Union; "wider benefits" being the excuse used by both a former Conservative Prime Minister and our present Prime Minister, with our fishermen and the marine resource considered expendable then and now.
	Ten years ago, the then chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, Mr. Tom Hay—today, the chairman of the Fishermen's Association Ltd.—warned fishermen of the dangers of the contents of ICES's advisory committee on fisheries management report published in November 1993. He also warned the industry to be under no illusion as to the seriousness of the intended attack on its livelihood and the viability of UK vessels. ICES was saying the same then as it is today, and this has been going on or a long time. Frankly, it is a miracle that marine stocks have held up so well in the face of what I can only describe as a political slaughter. Sadly, as the House will know, the industry is disappearing at an ever-increasing rate before our very eyes.
	The Fishermen's Association Ltd. last week asked scientists in Aberdeen how it is that fishing pressure must have been as great, if not greater, on haddock stock as it has been on cod; yet we are told by ICES that we have the largest haddock stock for 30 years, while the spawning stock biomass of cod is at an all-time low. There is constant fishing effort on haddock rather than cod, so why have haddock stocks not been destroyed? ICES believes that the white fishing vessels present a threat to the cod stocks within the British sector of Community waters, but there are hardly any UK vessels left in that fishery—so where are these vessels based?
	Neither should the Minister go on about the so-called over-fishing of the Newfoundland grand banks. The true reason for cod's disappearance from the banks is climate change, as the cod move eastwards towards Greenland and Iceland and into the Barents sea due to colder water. The thawing ice pack is making ocean waters colder, which are drawn down the eastern seaboard of north America. To keep using this as an example of what could happen if ICES's advice is not followed is disingenuous to say the least.The same principle applies on this side of the Atlantic ocean; that is, using cod to hide political aspirations. It is time the truth came out so that people can judge for themselves.
	There is only one answer: for national control over waters formerly established by old Labour, but apparently not wanted now by new Labour, to be returned to Parliament in Westminster. The central control of European Union fisheries is an environmental and social disaster, and it is no good saying either that regional advice councils will be the solution. Commissioner Fischler has already made it clear, in respect of the Baltic cod stocks, that fisheries management is exclusively within Community competence and that treaty revisions strengthening the principle of subsidiarity do not apply.
	I accept—everyone would, for obvious reasons—that national control cannot solve climatic change, but it can at least run fisheries free of political interference, and, indeed, of integration within the EU, and can respond quickly to benefit whichever species is suitable for the changing British waters, thereby allowing stocks to prosper alongside a thriving fishing industry.
	In an article entitled "No compromise on cod", last week's Fishing News quoted the Minister as saying that not all in the fishing industry want national control, and that some say privately that they do not support that policy at all. I should like the Minister to answer that point when he responds, because in my view those people should either put up, or shut up. He has a good opportunity to tell us today who those people are and to which organisations they belong. In doing what they are allegedly doing, they are undermining the prospect of any recovery in the fishing industry in the British sector.

Alan Reid: I am grateful for the fact that we have some extra time, because it has given me the chance to speak in a debate that I had not intended to speak in. I apologise to the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and to the Minister for not giving them prior notice of my wish to speak; it was only once the extra time became available that I realised that I could do so.
	I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this very important subject, but she will probably not be surprised to learn that I disagree with her proposed solution. Coming out of the common fisheries policy and achieving national control is not the solution. Although it is technically possible for Parliament to pass an amendment to European Community legislation so that we can come out of the CFP, it would not be possible to do so without leaving the EU entirely.

Ann Winterton: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman—I do so in what I hope is a pleasant way—but I have taken advice on this issue, and he is completely wrong: we do not have to come out of the European Union if we decide not to continue within the CFP.

Alan Reid: My understanding is different, but if the hon. Lady sends me copies of the legal advice that she has received, I should certainly be interested in exploring the matter further.
	The way forward is to establish regional management committees that have real power. The regional advisory committees that were agreed at last year's December Council are certainly a step in the right direction, but only a very short step—they have nothing like the correct powers that regional management committees should have. Fishing is best managed by those who work in, and have a stake in, the industry; moreover, scientists should also be involved. Power should be given to regional management committees, rather than such decisions being taken yearly through political machinations in Brussels. The hon. Lady is right: we should take the politicians out of the discussions and set up regional management committees that involve fishermen, the fish processing industry, and various other stakeholders and scientists. It is the people who have a stake in the survival of fish stocks in their own areas who should be taking the decisions.

Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that these new councils will have no teeth whatever but will be mere talking shops, and that the CFP will continue as it has done for the past few years, because we have no power over the situation? Does he further accept that his own party is split on the issue of national control? His colleague, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), fully supports it, as does the Scottish National party.

Alan Reid: I agree that the regional advisory councils set up in December have no teeth and are woefully inadequate in respect of the powers that they need. It was, as I said, a step, but only a very short step, in the right direction. What is needed is for management power to be devolved to regional management committees, which should not just be advisory councils. My party's policy is clear: we believe in fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy, but not through national control, which I believe is unachievable. Fundamental reform is required, but it will certainly take a long time to negotiate.
	I want to turn to what will take place at this year's December Council. Cod stocks are clearly in a poor state, but other stocks in the North sea are, on the whole, doing very well. For example, the haddock stock is now at a 30-year high, the whiting stock continues to increase, saithe is clearly within safe biological limits and prawns are abundant. It is now definitely established that the cod by-catch from fishing for prawns is negligible, and there is no justification whatever for cutting back on fishing for prawns, because earlier arguments no longer apply: scientists have shown that the cod by-catch is negligible.
	It is possible to separate the key cod grounds from the key fishing grounds for other species. I was sent a map by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which shows the key cod grounds in the North sea. They represent only a small proportion of the North sea as a whole, and fishing for other species can continue in other parts without causing any risk to cod. Recovery measures should be focused in the key cod areas; in the remaining areas, where other species are abundant and there is barely any cod at all, fishing should be permitted for the other stocks. That is a plan that I hope the Minister will consider and pursue at the December Council.
	The advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is very crude in simply saying, "Stop the fishing." Whether that would cause cod to recover, we certainly do not know, but we do know that it would mean the end of the Scottish fishing industry. Like most industries, fishing is not one that can simply be switched on and off. If fishing were to cease, fishermen would go bankrupt. The only way to avoid bankruptcy would be for the Government to pay more money for decommissioning. As well as fishermen going bankrupt, the fish processing industry would go out of business. Even if cod returned in years to come, the fishing industry could not simply be switched on again.

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case about what will happen if we continue as we are. However, he tells us that his party wants fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy, so will he tell the House how that will be achieved? Without unanimity, it will never be achieved, so it is whistling in the wind. Secondly, did he note what I said about the Faroe Islands, which did the opposite to what ICES advised and developed a vibrant fishing industry over the past few years? Would it not be better for this country to follow such a policy?

Alan Reid: As I said, my party's policy is to have fundamental reform. We have to convince people and win the case in Europe. It does not require unanimity, because these matters are decided by qualified majority voting. It will be for the Minister when he goes to Brussels for the December Council to negotiate and seek to persuade our European partners that fundamental reform of the CFP is in the interest of the whole of Europe, and that powers to take decisions should be devolved to regional management committees.

Ann Winterton: How does the hon. Gentleman believe that such an outcome can be arrived at? What benefits Scottish fishermen will be an equal disbenefit to the Spanish. Are the Spanish likely to agree to such a proposal? I am sure that Spain has more clout in the Fisheries Council than we have.

Alan Reid: I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that wiping out stocks of cod or any other fish will not benefit any country. I would hope that we could persuade other countries through the strength of our arguments.
	Our scientific knowledge of what goes on under the sea is very limited. We do not know why cod stocks have declined in the North sea but appear to be prospering further north. Global warming may be responsible, but we simply do not know. To stop all fishing and cause the demise of the fishing industry is not the solution.
	I commend to the Minister the proposal from the SFF, which was that the key cod grounds in the North sea should be identified and conservation measures adopted in those areas, but that fishing for other abundant stocks elsewhere in the North sea should be allowed to continue.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) on securing this debate. Her constituency is landlocked, but she is a doughty fighter for UK fishermen. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), who took advantage of the extra time for the debate to make a speech that I know was based on his great local knowledge of his own constituency. His speech contained a lot of common sense.
	The hon. Member for Congleton regaled us with her usual litany of criticisms of the common fisheries policy. She sees it as the source of all the difficulties that beset the UK fishing industry, but I have difficulties with that view. As I am sure she knows, fish stocks do not respect national boundaries; they are migratory by nature. Realistically, any regulatory system must be agreed among the countries whose fishermen exploit the fish stocks as they move around. Therefore, if there were no CFP, we would have to negotiate one—and a management system—with all the countries involved. We would have to negotiate and agree management measures for the stocks, and the extent to which the different fleets had access to the fishing grounds and the stocks. That would be no more or less than a common fisheries policy.
	Of course, that is not to say that the CFP has no faults. On the contrary, it has been rightly criticised for failing, up until now, to deliver many of its key aims. For example, in many cases it has not ensured healthy fish stocks or a profitable fishing industry, and it has not always brought fishing capacity into line with fishing opportunities. However, it would be wrong to conclude from that that we would be better off without the CFP, or outside it.
	What would be the point of pulling out of the CFP, even assuming—and I shall give the hon. Member for Congleton the benefit of the doubt on this—that the necessary treaty amendment could be negotiated? If that happened, it would be necessary immediately to set up negotiations—with the EU, and between the EU and Norway and the EU and Greenland and so on—on arrangements that cover precisely the same ground. The whole proposition is risible. On many occasions I have said that it is a cruel deception of UK fishermen to argue that proceeding in that way would bring about the sustainable future for our fishing industry that is, of course, our primary aim.
	The hon. Lady asked a specific question, in which she quoted from a letter that I wrote to Fishing News last week. It is not for me to speak on behalf of individuals or organisations, as they can speak for themselves. However—and she may correct if I am wrong—I have not heard of any of the leading UK fishing organisations currently pressing for national control.
	The truth is only too clear. The solution to the problem of an inadequate CFP is to negotiate one that is adequate. That is what we set out to do at the review of the CFP that was completed at the December 2002 Council of Ministers. We not only set out to do that, we achieved all our objectives in respect of the guiding principles and goals in what might be called the first phase of CFP reform—that is to say, the adoption of a new basic CFP regulation.

Ann Winterton: I like the Minister enormously but I cannot believe his complacency as he reads that speech from the Dispatch Box. We have had 30 years of the common fisheries policy, which has brought about the worst environmental disaster ever for our fishing industry; yet his only answer is to offer more of the same and to say that things will be better tomorrow when we have negotiated this or that. Is he not just a little bit—just a tad—concerned that things will not turn out as he expects?

Ben Bradshaw: I am very concerned, and not at all complacent about the future of the UK fishery and our fishing industry. I was about to explain how we would address that. The hon. Lady's simple, neat solution—national control—is a cruel deception of our industry. We have to reform the CFP in a sustainable way that can guarantee future profitability for our industry.
	We achieved all our objectives in December 2002. The new regulations include much more robust commitments from the Council of Ministers to conserve or, where necessary, recover commercial fish stocks in line with scientific advice. They put environmental considerations at the heart of the CFP and reiterate relative stability, the mechanism for dividing EU fishing opportunities among member state fleets in accordance with their historical track record. The hon. Lady ignored that important historical defence in her speech.
	The regulations renew the rights of coastal member states at 12 miles. From the end of 2004, they require for all members the cessation of subsidies for the building of new fishing vessels, which the UK has not paid for many years. They also provide for the setting up of regional advisory councils to give fishermen and all parties with an interest in commercial fish stocks a more direct input into the process of setting policy and managing fish stocks. Those will not be merely talking shops. I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that it is important that we develop those initiatives into proper regional management structures with teeth. That is certainly the Government's aspiration.
	Not only does the new CFP give us a stronger basis for action, but we have already seen examples of such action. This year there has been the prompt development by the Commission of the proposals for regional advisory councils; the adoption by the Commission, at the UK's request, of emergency measures to protect against damage from fishing the unique cold-water coral formations known as the Darwin Mounds; and the adoption of an EU measure to restrict shark finning. We could not have achieved that important progress outside the CFP, nor could we have achieved through unilateral action many of our other vital aims for the conservation of fish stocks and the environment in which they live.

Ann Winterton: Can the Minister explain the Government's failure to restrict industrial fishing? Should not that be a priority?

Ben Bradshaw: I share the hon. Lady's concern about industrial fishing. She will know well that for many years it has been the Government's policy to oppose industrial fishing, but we have lacked adequate scientific proof of our case. This year we have expended considerable sums of money to collect that evidence. We shall present it to the Commission, where we are already winning friends. I am sure that the hon. Lady has read carefully the latest International Council for the Exploration of the Sea scientific advice—although from what she says, I suspect that she will not take much notice of it—which recommends a cut in industrial fishing, and we shall press for that at the Council in December.
	The depletion of key stocks of vital interest to UK fishermen is clearly, from a UK point of view, the most pressing problem to be addressed under the CFP. The scientific advice on cod is no better this year than last, and that alone highlights the urgency of the problems. However, that is further highlighted by the severity of the interim EU recovery measures—in the form of days-at-sea restrictions—that we introduced at last December's Council.
	The hon. Lady's position seems to be that the measures introduced bear unfairly on the UK and are, in some way, designed to take fish away from the UK and give them to Spain and other member states. I can only describe that as a misconceived view. The UK fleet has the major share both of the depleted stocks and of many of the stocks caught with them in the mixed fishery.
	If the permitted levels of fishing and catches have to be cut, relative stability protects our share of what is left, but the cuts inevitably bear heavily on us because of the extent of our involvement. The consequences are harsh for UK fishermen, but they are necessary to provide for the long-term sustainability of the industry, and they are not unfair in the way the hon. Lady claims. Throughout the UK, £60 million of public money has been made available this year, through decommissioning schemes and related measures, in recognition of that impact and to bring capacity more into line with opportunity.
	We now have this year's ICES advice on the state of commercial fish stocks, and we are in the run-up to the all-important December Council, which will determine the catch levels and recovery measures to be applied in 2004. The advice does make generally bleak reading—it identifies some slight encouraging trends in key cod fisheries in the North sea and Irish sea, but does not consider those a robust basis to relax the push for recovery. As last year, zero catches are recommended for a number of stocks. However, the state of some other species—both hon. Members mentioned haddock—is assessed to be such as to permit healthy fishing opportunities, subject to the very considerable proviso that by-catch and discards of cod must be eliminated.
	The hon. Gentleman said a lot of common-sense things about the problem of by-catch in a mixed fishery and drew attention to the very positive contribution made by the Scottish Fishermen's Association report on that. I have read that report and we will certainly bear it in mind when we enter the negotiations. My Scottish colleague, Ross Finnie, and I want whatever is recommended for cod to be decoupled, so far as is possible, from other fish stocks, and we are always keen to see evidence of where that decoupling is possible, either in the form of technical measures or areas where it is possible to fish for haddock without catching cod in large numbers as a by-catch. However, we must await the Commission's indication of what total allowable catches and quotas it now proposes to put alongside the proposals for a more permanent cod recovery plan, which it already has on the table.
	Given the seriousness of the impact that possible outcomes will have on fishermen's activities, I can understand why people such as the hon. Lady are inclined to question the scientific advice and the integrity of the CFP under which such things are done. Although I acknowledge the uncertainty in parts of the scientific analysis, the science still fully justifies the recommendations for firm action. The CFP measures represent the best and, indeed, the only possible route to address the problems that we face.
	The hon. Lady catalogued a litany of what she alleged were the failures of the ICES science, but I would say in return, especially in reference to what she said about the grand banks, that the decimation of stocks in that and the other examples that she cited has been the result not of scientific predictions, but of politicians not taking courageous and difficult decisions and ignoring scientific advice until it was too late. I have a challenge for her—she and her alternative scientists could always commission a piece of work and have it published and peer reviewed in a scientific journal. So far that has not happened, and I wonder why.

Ann Winterton: I must admit that the scientific papers that have been peer reviewed have not said anything that is worth listening to. The Minister makes no mention whatsoever of climatic changes in the seas off the grand banks. Why not? Why has he not answered the questions that I asked in my speech? Why have the Faroe Islands been successful, having totally ignored the so-called scientific advice? If it had followed it, it would now be out of fishing altogether.

Ben Bradshaw: The point that I am trying to make is that, in one or two examples off the United States and Canada and in examples in our own CFP, some scientists and others would argue that one of the reasons why their advice has not brought success is that it has not been heeded. Indeed, the hon. Lady will know that the scientific advice last year was for a complete closure of the cod fishery around the United Kingdom, but we in the Council of Ministers did not agree to that. I am not saying—neither would the scientists, I think—that climate change plays no role in the movement of fish and in the state of fish stocks. Again, if the hon. Lady is keen to set up alternative fisheries scientific research and perhaps find someone to fund, carry out, publish and peer review that research, I should be extremely pleased to read whatever those scientists come up with. That has not happened so far, and I wonder why.

Ann Winterton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman why—because it is not necessary to go to those lengths. It is quite simple that if we destroy the food source, such as the sand eels and the tiny fish that are destroyed by industrial fishing, and we bring in a system in which more fish are dumped dead at sea than are landed, surely we know the reason why there are fewer cod in the sea. It is because of those two things. The scientists, with all their wisdom, their peer review and their great intelligence, apparently cannot say to the Minister that industrial fishing is one of the major causes of what is happening in our seas in the British sector at present. It seems to me as simple as that.

Ben Bradshaw: I suggest that neither the hon. Lady nor I are the best people to make judgments on the reasons for the decline or otherwise of fish stocks. Every one of those eminent international marine biologists agrees on the basic correctness of the ICES advice. I repeat my challenge to her—

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I will not. I have been very generous. All I will say is that I hear all sorts of reasons given to me by members of the Conservative party and some people in the fishing industry as to why there has been a decline in cod stocks—climate change, the seals, the whales, ocean currents—but a consensus exists throughout international science that the single most important impact on our marine environment and on fishing is man. It is as simple as that.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: I will give way for one final time, and then we really must go home.

Ann Winterton: The Minister is very generous. May I suggest to him that he sends scientists to meet the marine biologists and scientists in Namibia, which repatriated its fishing waters on independence? It has successfully regenerated hake so that it now has a vibrant fishing industry and fish processing industry. What I have spoken about tonight has been done in Namibia, a supposedly third-world country. If the Minister sent his scientists down there, they might learn a thing or two.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that my scientists are already well aware of what has happened in Namibia. They and I are keen to learn from the experience of successful fisheries management wherever it is in the world. I think that the hon. Lady will find, however, if she studies these matters in detail, that those examples of successful fisheries management are based on scientific advice in exactly the same way as ours.
	We are therefore engaged in a process of examining the latest scientific advice, interpreting what it is telling us, and consulting affected UK interests so that we can agree on the UK line for the December Council. When I say "we", I of course mean the Fisheries Ministers of the whole United Kingdom. That UK line is to be formulated in the coming weeks, but I am sure that it will have the aim of achieving measures that respect the scientific advice, are aimed at bringing about the recovery of stocks when that is necessary, find ways of exploiting the more healthy stocks when that can be done without jeopardising recovery, and are equitable in the way that they impact on the different national fleets, fishing communities and member states with an interest in the stocks concerned.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.